national

Japanese company apologizes to U.S. POWs for WWII forced labor

136 Comments
By ANDREW DALTON

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

136 Comments
Login to comment

Beautiful. Can anyone who has voiced an objection to such statements kindly explain why? I'm speaking directly to reformedbasher, tinawatanabe, and ch3 yadayada....

What is so wrong with an apology? In ww2, and beyond, disgusting acts of rape and genocide happened. They are undeniable whoever we may wish and they were not confined to one side or one country. Why is it so hard to admit these happened? Admitting these things happened in no way diminishes the great works and progress all concerned countries have made. But, how can we move forward without admitting such wrongs happened? How can we move on when some people are so committed to denying these things happened despite all of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

Kudos to Mitsubishi materials corporation for having a soul and bless James Murphy and all the countless numbers of others who have been denied an apology for all too long.

17 ( +19 / -2 )

I hope Abe pays attention....

14 ( +16 / -2 )

Seventy years too late and yet right on time to put it to Abe.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

ok, so now shouldn't America apologise to Japan for the nuclear bombs?

-14 ( +7 / -21 )

Integrity and true sincerity, something Abe and his cronies are seriously lacking. This reminds me off the 50th anniversary of the battle of Iwo Jima when the survivors from both sides met and embraced. I remember a poignant comment by a Japanese soldier which was echoed by a Marine, and he said something like, "there were no cries of banzai, only the cries for the mothers." It's a sad and dangerous day when the constitution can be ignored and trampled to push one's personal political agenda through without proper discourse.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Hikaru Kimura mea culpa, I have no doubt the sentiment 'deep sense of ethical responsibility for a past tragedy' is genuine, Abe san is not for playing the politics of apology. The overriding fact an apology is rendered meaningless, is because the act in itself will never right historical wrongs. Politicians are the least well equipped to issue apologies, only thought education can society truly embrace the meaning of contrition.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Thank you for your service, Mr. Murphy.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Why apologise only to American POW?

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Rick, no.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

“We also have to apologize for not apologizing earlier,”

Kudos to these people for apologizing, and acknowledging as well that the apology comes so late. Here's hoping others take up the cause and apologize for past atrocities, slave labor, and sexual slavery among other things. And I hope Abe's listening on the eve of his 'new apology'.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

I think this is pretty awesome. This company was under no obligation to do this and I can't imagine it'll increase sales much, I think they just felt like it was the right thing to do. No hidden agenda, just a real solid awesome gesture.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

What about an even BIGGER apology to the Chinese and Koreans?

In comparison the American POWs were a drop in the bucket.

0 ( +10 / -10 )

OMEDETTO MITSUBISHI SAMA!! The three diamond mark stands morally tall.

Thanks also for the magnanimity of heart of Mr. James Murphy.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@Bertie . . . (not too often but) Agree with you here, big time. American POW were active combatants in a war. The poor 12 yr old chinese girls (Nanjing incident) who were gang raped then shot & other victims like them had no chance in hell-

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Tiger in Aug, you will have cabce ti write on S bomb.

Bertie Why it has to apology what it did not/?

@Rick ShinjukuJUL. 20, 2015 - 05:08PM JST ok, so now shouldn't America apologise to Japan for the nuclear bomb

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

0 ( +1 / -1 )

hundred times as more Koreans, Chinese, the Dutch, the Brits, South East Asians, all forced labourers that this company used, compared to the number of US POW's, and they only apologize to the US POW's.

What's their strategy they're trying to use here? Is it possible that they're just trying to head off any criticism from their biggest business customer?

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

This is good news. The company wants to be able to move on and the only way to do that is acknowledge the past. Abe should pay attention

2 ( +2 / -0 )

sf2k, I have a feeling it was Abe behind Mitsubishi's apology.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

MM has been Japan based company. Ir did not operate in other countries during WW II

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@Bertie

Japanese people look down at Chinese and Korean but look up to the American so chances are, they won't apologize to Chinese and Korean.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Why now? Why America? Koreans & Chinese & others have been asking for the same respect. Maybe they see the writing in the wall as some of these companies are now being sued in US courts for atrocities committed in Asia.

Nagasaki & Hiroshima? Let's say sorry then turn around and point our collective guns in the direction of SEAsia.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

I understand other posters' feelings of disappointment. But Mitsubishi has stepped forward of its own volition to do this. Sure Japan has ways to go but Mitsubishi is pioneering the way. We know the atrocious evil Japan inflicted upon other people, and those people are calling for apologies. Will Japan and other entities within it pick up the girdle as Mitsubishi has done? This is the 64 million dollar question.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

they won't apologize to Chinese and Korean.

Hansaram - How many times more do you want?

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

Hansaram - How many times more do you want?

tinawatanabe - Perhaps 1 honest and sincere one? 1000 times more Chinese & Koreans CIVILIANS were murdered than U.S. MILITARY POWs.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

maglev101 - Many Japanese were murdered by Koreans and Chinese too at the end of the war. Many Japanese left their children when escaping. Have you apologized?

It is ridiculous that people always crititicize only Japan. There were many wars in history before and after the Japan's war. The history is very long, China never demands apology on British. You have to study all the history.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Sir; good an apology has been made--But what about USA aopology for Hiroshima andNagasaki and --no its USA THAT SHOULD APOLOGISE TO the Japanese nation ! also people still suffer from radiation problems.... Thomas

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

@tinawatanabe

A specific apologize to Nanking massacre is needed. Yes, Japan has apologize before but non of them are specific about Nanking. Let me tell you a story about argument I had with one Japanese guy in the internet. According to that Japanese guy, Nanking massacre never happen. Then, I pointed out that Japanese government has apologize which prove that Japanese government acknowledge that Nanking massacre. However, the Japanese guy reply me and argue that Japanese government never specifically apologize on massacre issues itself but rather just a general apologize on the war damage cause, thus Japanese government never acknowledge Nanking massacre is real. Personally, I think it's better that Japanese government issues an apologize SPECIFICALLY for Nanking massacre.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

@thomas: please wait next month to discuss about A bomb. Let us stick to M M apology. Because M always avoided Choshu people dominated area such as China and Korea, it did not have a chance to slave labor in other countries. It was their tradition since Meiji Ishin. Recent experience. It delayed and delayed other division auto making in USA. Nissan was there, Nissan founder Ayukawa was from Choshu. When GHQ wanted to rebuild Japan, that custom helped. GHQ asked M to rebuild Japan claiming M is peaceful three diamond. Meanwhile Nissan's Ayukawa was in A Class. and stayed in Sugamo war prison. M wanted apology. Good for M

1 ( +1 / -0 )

As Singapore PM pointed out, although Japan has apologize many times, on issues like Nanking massacre, its positions have been less unequivocal.

“Japan has already expressed remorse or apologies for the war in general terms… but on specific issues like comfort women and the Nanjing Massacre, its positions have been less unequivocal,” Lee said. http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/diplomacy/article/1813134/singaporean-leader-calls-states-break-vicious-cycle-south-china?ei=oH1pVazJDYOjygOC4YGYDA&ved=0CC8Q-AsoAjAIOB4&usg=AFQjCNHxwEbRNWyWI7yPFokEwxjOefFDkA

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

As Singapore PM pointed out, although Japan has apologize many times, on issues like Nanking massacre, its positions have been less unequivocal.

“Japan has already expressed remorse or apologies for the war in general terms… but on specific issues like comfort women and the Nanjing Massacre, its positions have been less unequivocal,” Lee said. http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/diplomacy/article/1813134/singaporean-leader-calls-states-break-vicious-cycle-south-china?ei=oH1pVazJDYOjygOC4YGYDA&ved=0CC8Q-AsoAjAIOB4&usg=AFQjCNHxwEbRNWyWI7yPFokEwxjOefFDkA

2 ( +4 / -2 )

tinawatanabe - Perhaps 1 honest and sincere one? 1000 times more Chinese & Koreans CIVILIANS were murdered than U.S. MILITARY POWs.

@maglev. Don't forget all the rapes. . . Japanese soldiers are among the "most" notorious for raping really young girls. - Look at their society. . . some men still covet underage. No wonder Japan was one of the last so-called modern nations to prohibit "child porn."

Compensating dates still go on though. Ever seen Ikebukuro on a Friday night??

0 ( +3 / -3 )

It will be great if Japanese government issues a statement apologize something along this line "We, the Japanese government admit that during Nanking massacre, thousands of innocent Chinese civilians has been murdered and raped by Imperial Japan. The Japanese government express regret and apologize for this incident".

Unfortunately, it might be too hard for Abe and Japanese government to offer such statement as they might lost votes and support from the Japanese right wingers.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Good job Mitsubishi. Hope they slipped the guy a little cash too.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

tinawatanabe: "It is ridiculous that people always crititicize only Japan."

Japan is NOT the only nation criticized by any means; just the only one you say doesn't need to apologize, and in fact deny many of the crimes it committed in the first place, from forced sexual slavery to the rape of Nanking. THAT is why YOU will ALWAYS need to apologize, tina. You can't even bring yourself to say the things happened and that you're sorry they did, so why would any apology that is undermined by you and the government, and is not official, ever be enough? Germany is an example of a nation that has EARNESTLY apologized and now enjoys a good relationship with its former enemies and the people it wronged. Japan has not, and as such does not enjoy a good relationship with those it committed the worst crimes against, is looked at unfavorably by those who suffered even in nations that now get along with Japan, and is even called on by JAPANESE HISTORIANS (as well as novelists, animators, and others) and others for sincere apologies and for Japan to admit wrong-doing instead of denying it.

So, this apology is a START, but ONLY a start. Now companies need to start apologizing to Koreans, Chinese, and others it forced into one type of labor or another, as well as for atrocities. And your nation needs to MEAN it, tina -- not just say, "yeah, yeah... we apologized, but are going to make a new 'apology' that is forward thinking soon". You're not the victim here, tina.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

hundred times as more Koreans, Chinese, the Dutch, the Brits, South East Asians, all forced labourers that this company used, compared to the number of US POW's, and they only apologize to the US POW's.

Again, Koreans weren't POW. They were part of the Japapanese Empire and were subject to conscription work (for Koreans, they had a special priviledge where such orders were given in latter part of 1944). Prior to that, it was strictly supply/demand recruitment where many Koreans, who were seeking better fortune, try to immigrate to Japan illegally.

This is well documented.

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

nigelboy: "Again, Koreans weren't POW."

They were forced into slavery. Period. Stop trying to suggest they were willing volunteers when they were not. You insult yourself and your nation, and spit on any previous attempts by respectable Japanese to make amends.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

They were forced into slavery. Period. Stop trying to suggest they were willing volunteers when they were not. You insult yourself and your nation, and spit on any previous attempts by respectable Japanese to make amends.

OK smith. I'll bite. How were they "forced"?

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

How about an apology to hundreds of thousands of Korean forced laborers who were the core of Imperial Japanese forced laborers. I bet Mitsubishi and others will never admit there guilt to these people...

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Mitsunbishi did not let Japanese govt rides on its apology. It did alone. It did not apology for Japan's atrocity during WW II. Just its own only

Korean people? They were shipped to Japan. If lucky, faather got a job in factory. cheap that they could not afford enough food. mothers became separaters of trash. Separatimg aluminum and papers, etc their elementary school childtren went door to door saying "Gomi lodasai" (pleas give trash' in my city/

0 ( +1 / -1 )

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

All those links on newspaper articles are prewar and have nothing to do with 1937-1945? I guess that's what you mean by "those days?" If Koreans were Japanese, something you have quoted many times, how then do they become "analogous to the undocumented in the USA", which is another matter you seem to know little about. So what are you saying, Koreans were Japanese but not enough to be able to live in Japan. Labor conscription didn't happen until 1944 but thousands were transported to mainland Japan prior to that but I guess you probably think just like you do with the comfort women that everyone wanted it, freely?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Better late than never.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@tina

How many times more do you want?

Once would be adequate if issued officially by the government in similarly unequivocal terms as the above apology and then adhered to by subsequent governments without equivocation or reassessment and backed up with actions such as handshakes and bows for the remaining surviving victims.

It is ridiculous that people always crititicize only Japan

People do not always criticize only Japan, and it is ridiculously defensive to claim that they do.

China never demands apology on British

For what? If you're referring to the Opium Wars, China in fact still bears quite a grudge against the British. However, it is not nearly as great a grudge as they hold against the Japanese. Why is that? Perhaps the fact that the Japanese killed 100 times as many Chinese as did the British may have something to do with it. Regardless; Japan would still owe China apologies whether Britain also gave them or not.

Hats off to MM for doing this and for acknowledging it took too long; I hope the Japanese goverenment can do the same.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

All those links on newspaper articles are prewar and have nothing to do with 1937-1945?

Yes it does. Because of your limited language ability, you fail to click 'next 100 cases'. I'll narrow it down for you.

http://www.zinbun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~mizna/cgi-bin/shinbun/shinbuns.cgi?midashi=&shinbun=&local1=&local2=&bunrui=%C5%CF%B9%D2&year1=&month1=&beforeyear=&beforemonth=&_ymd=after&afteryear=1937&aftermonth=1&karayear=&karamonth=&madeyear=&mademonth=&perpage=100&page=1

If Koreans were Japanese, something you have quoted many times, how then do they become "analogous to the undocumented in the USA", which is another matter you seem to know little about. So what are you saying, Koreans were Japanese but not enough to be able to live in Japan

Yes. Koreans were part of the Japanese Empire but were subjected to different status (priviledges) for conscription did not apply to them until 1944. Prior to that, the Japanese government set limits on Koreans trying to immigrate to Japan.

Labor conscription didn't happen until 1944 but thousands were transported to mainland Japan prior to that but I guess you probably think just like you do with the comfort women that everyone wanted it, freely?

Again, please explain the illegal immigration as noted in the articles linked above. Are you stating that the Koreans, as a population, have a general innate tendency to risk their own lives to go to a place where they don't want to go?

Please. Simple logical explanation would be suffice.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

So let's try the logic of the Japanese. Koreans were Japanese citizens with equal rights, yet they couldn't freely immigrate to Japan. But they were illegal immigrants. How is that even be logical? Just as Japanese living in Okinawa can go to Tokyo anytime they want, why couldn't Koreans go to Japan any time they wanted? Weren't they supposed to have been equals?

The reality was that Japan tried to assimilate Koreans into Japanese empire by obliterating Korean identity. On paper, according to Japan's colonial government, Koreans were supposed to be Japanese citizens. However in reality, Koreans were not much different from exploited slaves.

Although Japanese used rhetoric that embraced assimilation, Japanese people themselves, from the top levels of government down, considered Koreans inferior and gave them few political rights. Segregation was built into everyday life. Japanese maintained separate communities in Korea, children were schooled in two separate and unequal systems, there was relatively limited intermarriage, and prejudice was ingrained. Under these circumstances, many Koreans resisted assimilation. By not actively promoting Korean-Japanese integration on the ground, Japan's rhetoric of assimilation remained just that.

Japanese always bring up the fact that they apologized. If you apologized, then what's all this nonsense of denials? Denials on comfort women, denials on massacres, denials on forced labourers, denials after denials after denials.. "but but but Japan apologized!" Apologized for what? You guys are denying everything. So then what did Japan apologize for?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

@TheTigerJUL. 20, 2015 - 06:53PM JST Why apologise only to American POW

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Because MM had only American POW on their employee records of WW era it did research.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Papi2013. In reality we dont have to apologize since this generation didn't take part in WW2.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

So let's try the logic of the Japanese. Koreans were Japanese citizens with equal rights, yet they couldn't freely immigrate to Japan. But they were illegal immigrants. How is that even be logical? Just as Japanese living in Okinawa can go to Tokyo anytime they want, why couldn't Koreans go to Japan any time they wanted? Weren't they supposed to have been equals?

The Japanese government set limits on the number of Koreans immigrating to Japan since there was still a disparity in living conditions between the mainland and the Korean peninsula at that time.

The reality was that Japan tried to assimilate Koreans into Japanese empire by obliterating Korean identity. On paper, according to Japan's colonial government, Koreans were supposed to be Japanese citizens. However in reality, Koreans were not much different from exploited slaves.

Not really. Korea before Japan's annexation is best described as 'slavery'. This is well documented.

Although Japanese used rhetoric that embraced assimilation, Japanese people themselves, from the top levels of government down, considered Koreans inferior and gave them few political rights. Segregation was built into everyday life. Japanese maintained separate communities in Korea, children were schooled in two separate and unequal systems, there was relatively limited intermarriage, and prejudice was ingrained. Under these circumstances, many Koreans resisted assimilation. By not actively promoting Korean-Japanese integration on the ground, Japan's rhetoric of assimilation remained just that.

Nope. There was very little 'resistance' to assimilation. In regards to Korea, the process of assimilation took time for the majority of the population before annexation were poor, illiterate, and lacking in civility so it's only natural that certain elements take time.

Japanese always bring up the fact that they apologized. If you apologized, then what's all this nonsense of denials? Denials on comfort women, denials on massacres, denials on forced labourers, denials after denials after denials.. "but but but Japan apologized!" Apologized for what? You guys are denying everything. So then what did Japan apologize for?

I don't think there are 'denials'. People are sort of fed up with the scenario that Korea creates on her own, claim to be victims of this creation that they imagined up, and ask the Japanese counterparts to acknowledge and apologize for it. And when such assertion is contested for verification in an objective manner and/or offered evidence to disprove the narrative, people like you simply scream "Denial!!".

The 'force labour' issue that you brought up is a classic case of it.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

overchan, it is your generation's responsibility to tell the truth in history, instead of defending what your forefather's did. Defending what your parents did means you approve of their misdeeds, therefore you're just as bad.

Now do these Koreans look like well paid salary workers to you?

<http://pds.joins.com/news/component/nocut/201507/04/20150703202503925537.jpg

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Woe-woe-woe! "Undocumented" Aliens usually refers to Mex immigrants. AND they weren't "forced" at all to come to the US

Thank you. Sometimes, a little common sense does wonders to refute these Korean claims of "being forced".

Lol, he inadvertently proved your point.

Although Japanese used rhetoric that embraced assimilation, Japanese people themselves, from the top levels of government down, considered Koreans inferior and gave them few political rights. Segregation was built into everyday life. Japanese maintained separate communities in Korea, children were schooled in two separate and unequal systems, there was relatively limited intermarriage, and prejudice was ingrained.

Yes, there were some level of discrimination against Koreans but not to the hyper exagerated extent that the Koreans love to accuse Japan of. Just look at your Korean president's father (how in hell could he become so high in command)?Also, Japan did introduce a unified standard public school education to the masses of Korean children so pretending that there wasn't is also misleading. Prior to the introduction, there was no public education available. Just as Koreans are accusing Japan of whitewashing facts, so are the Koreans.

Based on your comments and other Koreans on this site, as well as the people I've met, it seems many are ill-informed about facts during that era and accuse that Japanese are the only one with historical amnesia.

I don't like some of the attitudes the Japanese right wingers cry out but there are just as many, if not more, Koreans who are also hyper-nationalist that are just as bad.

It's a never ending cycle unfortunately with both parties slinging mud at each other.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Perhaps the move, Unbroken, the Louie Zamperini story, has had an impact. Forgiveness is good for the soul. Japan and the USA have become strong Allies and good neighbors since the war years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I watched the film of this apology and noticed immediately that the bows by the Mitsubishi people when they shook hands with James Murphy were barely a nod of the head.

If they had been bowing with a prospective customer they would have put much more effort into a proper bow.

True forgiveness can only follow true contrition.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Nicholas TeeJUL. 21, 2015 - 06:29AM JST I watched the film of this apology and noticed immediately that the bows by the Mitsubishi people when they shook hands with James Murphy were barely a nod of the head. If they had been bowing with a prospective customer they would have put much more effort into a proper bow. True forgiveness can only follow true contrition.

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

@nicholas Tee: I don't think almostf all Japanese know how to do proper bow except people who had to take Ogasawara ryu reihou Sho study. Have you studied that many volumed books?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Does Japanese company apologizes to China and Korea for WWII forced labor?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Good start. Should apologise to other countries where many more were killed.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Mitsubishi is not apologizing to countries, America or otherwise. They went directly to the people who were hurt by their actions - the force laborers, and made their apology directly. That's how it should be. Good on Mitsubishi.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

mrjob: Aw you requesting to MM?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@nigelboy

Your whole argument that Koreans were not used as forced labour seems to rest on the argument that they all immigrated to Japan of their own volition. The problem with your argument is that some were forced while others immigrated; both situations happened so proving one does not disprove the other. An apology would only be necessary for those who were forced.

Also how do you explain away the Koreans who were used by Japan as forced labour in the Korea peninsula itself, in Manchukuo, and in Sakhalin? the Korean-Russian population today is descended from those forced labourers. And while you're correct that Koreans weren't conscripted to the military until '44, they were conscripted as labourers from 1942.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Your whole argument that Koreans were not used as forced labour seems to rest on the argument that they all immigrated to Japan of their own volition. The problem with your argument is that some were forced while others immigrated; both situations happened so proving one does not disprove the other. An apology would only be necessary for those who were forced.

I asked another poster o I'll ask you instead. How were they 'forced'?

Also how do you explain away the Koreans who were used by Japan as forced labour in the Korea peninsula itself, in Manchukuo, and in Sakhalin? the Korean-Russian population today is descended from those forced labourers. And while you're correct that Koreans weren't conscripted to the military until '44, they were conscripted as labourers from 1942.

False. Cabinet decision was made on August 8, 1944 and implemented in September.

http://www.digital.archives.go.jp/DAS/meta/listPhoto?KEYWORD=&LANG=eng&BID=F0000000000000008046&ID=M0000000000001776250&IS_STYLE=eng&NO=

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@tinawatanabe "How many times do you want?" Indeed. Enough. Mitsubishi has just made a very stupid thing to increase a complex of inferiority for every Japanese.

"It is ridiculous that people always criticize only Japan".

A merciless choir of Chinese and Koreans, carefully orchestrated by the USA. It's a business. You may bring apology thousand or million times more and still they will not be satisfied.

@smithinjapan "THAT is why YOU will ALWAYS need to apologize"

Stop trying to humiliate Japan more and more by your shameless whining ! Stop trying to impose an endless complex of inferiority to Japanese people !

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@nigel

How were they 'forced'

Under the National Mobilization Law, which was passed in 1938 and extended to the Korean peninsula in 1942.

False. Cabinet decision was made on August 8, 1944 and implemented in September.

See above.

Anyway, regardless of whether that happened in 1942 or 1944, it happened. People were "imported" as a result, answering your own question as to how they were forced.

And you completely ignored my question regarding Korean labourers in Manchukuo, Sakhalin, and the Korean peninsula itself so kindly address that in your reply.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Still nagging about Japan and Japanese companies that have to apologize.....

According to conservative estimates, the Krupp enterprises used nearly 100,000 persons in the forced labor program, about 23,000 of which were prisoners of war.

Did KRUPP ever aplogize? NO..... and no one is talking about.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Under the National Mobilization Law, which was passed in 1938 and extended to the Korean peninsula in 1942.

As linked already, August 8, 1944.

Anyway, regardless of whether that happened in 1942 or 1944, it happened. People were "imported" as a result, answering your own question as to how they were forced.

In other words, for some special reason, Korean 'suffering' has to be recognized and elevated despite being subject the law for less than a year while the mainland Japanese endured much longer and hundreds times more in numbers.

And you completely ignored my question regarding Korean labourers in Manchukuo, Sakhalin, and the Korean peninsula itself so kindly address that in your reply.

What about them? What makes them so special? You make it sound as though Koreans are genetically programmed not to work and that somehow allowing such opportunity is in some sort of violation.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

This was a great story and seemed genuine and meaningful - esp to the POW.

Pity it had to ruined by nasty bickering.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

In other words, for some special reason, Korean 'suffering' has to be recognized and elevated...

No, just recognised and apologised for. Elevation has nothing to do with it.

...despite being subject the law for less than a year...

So it sounds as though you do in fact acknowledge that the law in question resulted in forced conscription? Thus answering what was your original question - how were they forced. In any case the important thing is not how long the law was in force for, but how many people (hundreds of thousands) suffered as a result of it.

...while the mainland Japanese endured much longer and hundreds times more in numbers

While that is both true and terrible, it is also irrellevant to the fact that many Koreans were used as forced labour and irrellevant to whether they should be apologised to for it.

What about them? What makes them so special?

Nothing. I simply pointed out that many Koreans were also used as forced labour in Manchukuo, Sakhalin, and the Korean peninsula itself, and asked how you would try to explain this away; by ranting about genetics apparently:

You make it sound as though Koreans are genetically programmed not to work...

That statement is laughable. I do no so such thing.

...and that somehow allowing such opportunity is in some sort of violation

No; the violation is in deporting them and forcing them to work in slavery conditions. I accept that many Koreans emmigrated to work of their own violition; but that was happening for a long time before the law that you yourself say was passed in 1944. A law which wasn't passed to give them an opportunity to work, but to bring hundreds of thousands more of them to work as slave labourers as the situation became more and more desperate.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

No, just recognised and apologised for. Elevation has nothing to do with it.

Apologize for what?

So it sounds as though you do in fact acknowledge that the law in question resulted in forced conscription? Thus answering what was your original question - how were they forced. In any case the important thing is not how long the law was in force for, but how many people (hundreds of thousands) suffered as a result of it.

Please stop inflating the numbers for Koreans. As in times of war, many nations were subjected to policy of requisition and Koreans under Japanese empire was no different.

While that is both true and terrible, it is also irrellevant to the fact that many Koreans were used as forced labour and irrellevant to whether they should be apologised to for it.

Not really terrible. It's basically a 'duty' exercized by most nations at that time.

That statement is laughable. I do no so such thing.

Then what it is it? What makes their 'plight" so special?

No; the violation is in deporting them and forcing them to work in slavery conditions. I accept that many Koreans emmigrated to work of their own violition; but that was happening for a long time before the law that you yourself say was passed in 1944. A law which wasn't passed to give them an opportunity to work, but to bring hundreds of thousands more of them to work as slave labourers as the situation became more and more desperate.

And prior to the enactment to the Koreans, it was the Japanese themselves who were subjected to the 'slavery' conditions prior because many young men were conscripted to the front line of the war.

Why are Koreans whining?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

From 1930 to 1945, the economic development taking place under Japanese rule brought little benefit to the Koreans. Virtually all industries (99 percent) were owned either by Japan-based corporations or by Japanese corporations in Korea. More and more farmland was taken over by the Japanese, and an increasing proportion of Korean farmers either became sharecroppers or migrated to Japan or Manchuria as greater quantities of Korean rice were exported to Japan to feed the soldiers. Japanese rule was harsh, especially after the Japanese militarists began their expansion.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Apologize for what?

For being forced into slavery under the law you have yourself acknowledged existed.

Please stop inflating the numbers for Koreans. As in times of war, many nations were subjected to policy of requisition and Koreans under Japanese empire was no different.

So if you acknowledge that happened why is it so hard to apologise for it? Whether it was 600 people or 600,000, I'm sure they would appreciate an apology as much as the U.S. POWs appreciated their apology from MM. And 600,000 - 700,000 is the number I find in every source I can find; I'm not inflating anything. What number do you believe it was, and do you think an apology should depend upon how many people suffered?

It's basically a 'duty' exercized by most nations at that time

Nonsense. At that time, only by Nazi Germany and Japan; I refer to using them as slave labour.

What makes their 'plight" so special?

Nothing special about it, as I already said. Again; how do you explain away the Koreans who were used as slave labour in Korea itself before the law was passed to conscript & deport them to mainland Japan, and how do you explain those who were taken to Manchukuo and Sakhalin? Third time I've asked; you don't have an explanation, do you?

And prior to the enactment to the Koreans, it was the Japanese themselves who were subjected to the 'slavery' conditions prior because many young men were conscripted to the front line of the war.

Again, although they also have my sympathy that is irrellevant to whether or not it happened to the Koreans.

Why are Koreans whining?

For the same reasons that the U.S. POWs in the story 'whined'; because they were forced into slavery and haven't yet recieved an apology, and because there are people such as yourself in Japan who refuse to even acknowledge them (though you do appear to know that it happened, and take the tactic of downplaying and obfuscating)

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

For being forced into slavery under the law you have yourself acknowledged existed.

Like I stated, it's requisition policy during the war in which many under Japanese were subjected to most whom were Japanese themselves. Don't know why there is a need for apology for such policy was quite common during large scale war.

So if you acknowledge that happened why is it so hard to apologise for it? Whether it was 600 people or 600,000, I'm sure they would appreciate an apology as much as the U.S. POWs appreciated their apology from MM. And 600,000 - 700,000 is the number I find in every source I can find; I'm not inflating anything. What number do you believe it was, and do you think an apology should depend upon how many people suffered?

See above. I made my point not to compare them with POW's. The number I find is "ごく少部分である" which is few or statistically insignificant.

"..1939年末現在日本内地に居住していた朝鮮人の総数は約100万人であつたが、1945年終戦直前にはその数は約200万人に達していた。

 そして、この間に増加した約100万人のうち、約70万人は自から内地に職を求めてきた個別渡航と出生による自然増加によるのであり、残りの30万人の大部分は工鉱業、土木事業等による募集に応じて自由契約にもとづき内地に渡来したものであり、国民徴用令により導入されたいわゆる徴用労務者の数はごく少部分である。  しかしてかれらに対しては、当時、所定の賃金等が支払われている。"

" During the latter part of 1939, the number of Koreans residing in Japan was approximately 1 million but at the end of the war, the number reached 2 million.

During that time which the increase was about 1 million, approximately 700,000 came to Japan on their own volition seeking jobs and natural increase (birth), 300,000 came via advertized recruitment and contract work most of which involved mining, manufacturing, and public works. Therefore, the Koreans who were subjected to 'requisition' was just a few. They were paid designated wages.''

Exerpt from Asahi Shinbun 7/11/1959 (based on Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

Nonsense. At that time, only by Nazi Germany and Japan; I refer to using them as slave labour.

Now I see where you are getting at. Any requisition/conscription policy done by Japan and Germany (bad guys) as slave labour.

Nothing special about it, as I already said. Again; how do you explain away the Koreans who were used as slave labour in Korea itself before the law was passed to conscript & deport them to mainland Japan, and how do you explain those who were taken to Manchukuo and Sakhalin? Third time I've asked; you don't have an explanation, do you?

What is this 'explanation' you seek? You are essentially attaching a word 'slave' when it comes to what Koreans did without any back up whatsover. What is it that I need to explain about these Dekasegi workers during war time?

For the same reasons that the U.S. POWs in the story 'whined'; because they were forced into slavery and haven't yet recieved an apology, and because there are people such as yourself in Japan who refuse to even acknowledge them (though you do appear to know that it happened, and take the tactic of downplaying and obfuscating

You're the one that's overplaying by incorporating the 'slavery' in regards to the Korean labour without any back up whatsoever.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

such policy was quite common during large scale war

Not in the 1940s. Germany, Japan, and who else? List them.

Now I see where you are getting at. Any requisition/conscription policy done by Japan and Germany (bad guys) as slave labour

No, what I was getting at was the falsehood of your claim that many countries at the time had similar policies. As I just said above - Germany and Japan; who else?

The number I find is "ごく少部分である" which is few or statistically insignificant.

The Japanese delegation to UNESCO recently acknowledged that the number of Koreans brought to Japan as forced labour was large - and that was only with respect to the handful of Japanese sites on the World Heritage bid list; there were many more such sites in Japan, in Korea, in China, in Sakhalin.

You're the one that's overplaying by incorporating the 'slavery' in regards to the Korean labour without any back up whatsoever.

Again, the Japanese government admits it happened:

"A Japanese representative at the Unesco meeting in Bonn, Germany, said that the nation was “prepared to take measures that allow an understanding that there were a large number of Koreans and others who were brought against their will and forced to work under harsh conditions in the 1940s at some of the sites” (pasted from the Telegraph)

So why can't you?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Not in the 1940s. Germany, Japan, and who else? List them.

United States and Britain. When able body men go fighting wars, there's a gap in the work force.

The Japanese delegation to UNESCO recently acknowledged that the number of Koreans brought to Japan as forced labour was large - and that was only with respect to the handful of Japanese sites on the World Heritage bid list; there were many more such sites in Japan, in Korea, in China, in Sakhalin

The delegate qualified it with 'and others' just to appease the Korean delegate counterparts. It's the same tactic used during the preparation of the Kono Statement.

And of course, the statement follows with

And continues,

.."And that during World War II, the government of Japan ALSO implemented its policy of requisition."

Face it. It's the Japanese themselves who were subjected the most by a far margin with this policy and again, I repeat, Koreans aren't any special other than the fact that they voice it the loudest.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

United States and Britain. When able body men go fighting wars, there's a gap in the work force.

Which they did not fill by forcibly removing people from their homelands and setting them to work in slave-like conditions. Again, that was German and Japanese policy; no-one else in the 1940s did that. And even if they had, your argument would still be whataboutery.

The delegate qualified it with 'and others' just to appease the Korean delegate counterparts.

No. The 'and others' means other nationalities as well as Korean - referring to the Chinese, SE Asians, and western POWs who were also subjected to the same treatment. Including the U.S. POWs in the story we're commenting on.

Face it. It's the Japanese themselves who were subjected the most by a far margin with this policy

I've already acknowledged that. What you're failing to explain is why that means Koreans don't deserve recognition for their treatment. You need to face the fact that many Koreans suffered as forced labourers under Japanese rule and stop trying to obfuscate and play it down. The Japanese government acknowledges it happened, why can't you?

One one hand, you deny that it happened. On the other, you say 'but everyone else was doing it' (though they were not), a tacit admission that it did happen. And then on yet another, you say but 'the Japanese suffered more than the Koreans' - another tacit admission it happened, which does absolutely nothing anyway to explain your reasoning as to why the Koreans in question don't deserve recognition. Your argument is a complete mess.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Which they did not fill by forcibly removing people from their homelands and setting them to work in slave-like conditions. Again, that was German and Japanese policy; no-one else in the 1940s did that. And even if they had, your argument would still be whataboutery.

You're doing it again. Using again "slave" when this was simply about conscription of labour during this time. Please.

No. The 'and others' means other nationalities as well as Korean - referring to the Chinese, SE Asians, and western POWs who were also subjected to the same treatment. Including the U.S. POWs in the story we're commenting on.

It's Japanese since the sentence was followed with the 'policy of requisition'. Please.

I've already acknowledged that. What you're failing to explain is why that means Koreans don't deserve recognition for their treatment. You need to face the fact that many Koreans suffered as forced labourers under Japanese rule and stop trying to obfuscate and play it down. The Japanese government acknowledges it happened, why can't you?

Yes. Force labour under the policy of requisition which was essentially a duty of the citizens. No specific recognition to a specific group is necessary. Who does this? Please.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

nigelboy

11 comments and not a single word about the actual contents of the post. Mitsubishi apologising to the American POW's for being used as forced labor?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Using again "slave" when this was simply about conscription of labour during this time

The lack of pay (I know they we're supposed to be paid), the lack of medicine, the inadequate food and the inadequate living conditions, and most especially the forced removal from their homeland qualify this as slave-like conditions. Again, no other countries at that time were doing that to their citizens, their colonial subjects, or the citizens of their occupied territories, other than Japan and Germany

essentially a duty of the citizen

The Koreans were citizens of Japan only by virtue of military conquest & colonial occupation. 'Duty'; nonsense.

Again, your argument is a contradictory mess; you tacitly admit it happened in order to make your whataboutery arguments and your obfuscations, and at the same time you acknowledge the law was passed to force Korean people into labour but deny that anyone from Korea was forced into labour. You are floundering here nigelboy.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Rationing was necessary throughout Japan at that time

That is an absurd attempt at a defence. We're not talking about rationing; we're talking about people being deported from their homelands and forced to work on industrial sites without pay, and without adequate food, medicine, or living arrangements.

There was no military conquest in regards to Korea

Absurd claim. Japan fought a war against Russia for control of Korea, and having won that war forced Korea to sign a treaty at the end of the barrel of a gun. Not a military invasion, no; but most certainly a conquest by military force.

And much of the colonial subjects throughout SE Asia served for the colonial masters

I have no idea what you're trying to say there. That people in SE Asia were also abused by Japan? Yes, we already know that. Or are you saying that they were serving e.g. France? If that is your argument, it is a fallacy; the treatment of the Vietnamese by the French is completely irrellevant to the treatment of the Koreans by the Japanese. In any case, the French did not deport Vietnamese to France to work as slaves in coal mines during WWII anyway.

I'm simply asking why Koreans need to be recognized specifically which you have yet to give an answer.

I have given an answer to that already; which is that they do not need to be elevated or recognised specifically - they just need to be recognised, along with all the other victims. Why is that so hard for you?

My point has been that they should not be considered in the same class as the POW

Irrellevant. No, they were not POWs; but their suffering was just as grave, and they deserve just the same recognition.

Nigelboy, in a dozen posts you have singularly failed to explain why Korean forced labourers do not deserve recognition. But you have tacitly admitted that they were forced into labour, which is all I was really trying to get you to do; your refusal to accept that an apology would be apt simply tells us that you are in denial. Thankfully Mitsubishi and the Japanese government are not so delusional.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

That is an absurd attempt at a defence. We're not talking about rationing; we're talking about people being deported from their homelands and forced to work on industrial sites without pay, and without adequate food, medicine, or living arrangements.

Without pay? No. These are the type of unsubstantiated allegations that fuels the distortion.

Absurd claim. Japan fought a war against Russia for control of Korea, and having won that war forced Korea to sign a treaty at the end of the barrel of a gun. Not a military invasion, no; but most certainly a conquest by military force.

Sorry. There was no 'barrel of a gun' type involved in the annexation treaty.

"Before we pitched the net, a fish jumped into the net," said Midori Komatsu, who was the foreign affairs director at the Office of the Japanese Resident General in Korea, recollecting the eve of the Japanese annexation of Korea in August 1910. His remarks are sinking deep into our minds, and we again confirm that 91 years ago we surrendered our country to the Japanese colonial government due to our hopeless ineptitude. On Aug. 29, 1910, the imperial government of Japan promulgated that it had taken over the entire government and administration of Korea, and Wednesday was the anniversary of the national humiliation. In studying this history, let us find out who chased the fish - annexation - into the net. Choson, or Korea, suggested annexation to Japan first. Lee Ik-jik was a secret envoy of Prime Minister Lee Wan-yong.."

I have no idea what you're trying to say there. That people in SE Asia were also abused by Japan? Yes, we already know that. Or are you saying that they were serving e.g. France? If that is your argument, it is a fallacy; the treatment of the Vietnamese by the French is completely irrellevant to the treatment of the Koreans by the Japanese. In any case, the French did not deport Vietnamese to France to work as slaves in coal mines during WWII anyway.

No. Phillipinos who had the duty to fight along their colonial masters in U.S. Malaysians and Indians for Britain. Indonesians for Netherlands. It was their civic duty to fight and work for the benefit of their colonial masters at that time. These people do not seek special recognition nor apologies from their fomer colonial masters.

have given an answer to that already; which is that they do not need to be elevated or recognised specifically - they just need to be recognised, along with all the other victims. Why is that so hard for you?

They are recognized for Japan had a requisition policy. What's the point of specifically mentioning them is my point considering the fact their contribution to Japan's war efforts are bare minimal compared to the rest of the Japanese citizens who had endured more hardships (longer) and substantially more in numbers (millions versus few) in regards to the policy of requisition.

Irrellevant. No, they were not POWs; but their suffering was just as grave, and they deserve just the same recognition

Just as 'grave'? How do you arrive at this magical leap?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Without pay? No. These are the type of unsubstantiated allegations that fuels the distortion

They were supposed to be paid, but the BoJ is today in possession of over 200 million yen in unpaid wages. And it isn't only about pay; the terrible living conditions, the deportation against their will, and the appalling death rate of these labourers qualify it as a severe human rights abuse.

Sorry. There was no 'barrel of a gun' type involved in the annexation treaty

Not talking about the 1910 annexation treaty, which merely formalised what was already the de facto situation. The gun-barrel diplomacy came in 1905 at the end of the Russo-Japan war with the signing of the Korea - Japan Protection Treaty while the Korean Imperial palace was surrounded by IJA forces and Japanese army units were stationed throughout the Korean peninsula. Korea had no choice but to sign; the subsequent annexation in 1910 was a mere formality.

No. Phillipinos who had the duty to fight along their colonial masters in U.S. Malaysians and Indians for Britain. Indonesians for Netherlands. It was their civic duty to fight and work for the benefit of their colonial masters at that time. These people do not seek special recognition nor apologies from their fomer colonial masters

You're trying to move the goalposts. We're not talking about military conscription, we're talking about forced labour. No civilians were used as forced labour in Britain's colonies at that time. In fact in one of your earlier posts above you made a point of the fact that the National Mobilisation Law used to conscript forced labourers by Japan was distinct from military conscription. But anyway, even if we were talking about military conscription, again you're completely incorrect; there was no duty of military service in British India, Dutch Indonesia, or the American Philippines. And even if there was, it still wouldn't be relevant to the question of how Japan treated its Korean subjects; "everyone else was doing it too" is not a sound justification.

They are recognized for Japan had a requisition policy. What's the point of specifically mentioning them is my point considering the fact their contribution to Japan's war efforts are bare minimal compared to the rest of the Japanese citizens who had endured more hardships (longer) and substantially more in numbers (millions versus few) in regards to the policy of requisition

Six to seven hundred thousand is not a few. And, yet again, it isn't a matter of specifically recognising them; just of recognising them. Which you have; thank you. Why do you need so badly to obfuscate? Just admit that it happened and that it was bad, and stop with the but, but, but

Irrellevant. No, they were not POWs; but their suffering was just as grave, and they deserve just the same recognition

Just as 'grave'? How do you arrive at this magical leap?

Koreans worked in the same kind of harsh conditions as POWs and suffered similarly appalling death rates. There is nothing magical about that.

Nigelboy, you admit that Koreans were conscripted under Japanese law to work against their will, and you know that conditions were terrible. Your argument that Japanese also suffered is irrelevant to whether the Koreans who suffered deserve recognition, and your arguments that other nations were doing the same are completely incorrect and amount to nothing more than whataboutery anyway; all this boils down to is that you simply refuse to acknowledge the suffering of Koreans, even though you admit it happened. Why is that?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

They were supposed to be paid, but the BoJ is today in possession of over 200 million yen in unpaid wages. And it isn't only about pay; the terrible living conditions, the deportation against their will, and the appalling death rate of these labourers qualify it as a severe human rights abuse.

Don't know where you got that outrageous figure but the monetary sums owed to Koreans were settled through Agreement Between Japan and the Republic of Korea Concerning the Settlement of Problems in Regard to Property and Claims and Economic Cooperation of 1965 where it states

"The High Contracting Parties confirm that the problems concerning property, rights, and interests of the two High Contracting Parties and their peoples (including juridical persons) and the claims between the High Contracting Parties and between their peoples, including those stipulated in Article IV(a) of the Peace Treaty with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on September 8, 1951, have been settled completely and finally."

Not talking about the 1910 annexation treaty, which merely formalised what was already the de facto situation. The gun-barrel diplomacy came in 1905 at the end of the Russo-Japan war with the signing of the Korea - Japan Protection Treaty while the Korean Imperial palace was surrounded by IJA forces and Japanese army units were stationed throughout the Korean peninsula. Korea had no choice but to sign; the subsequent annexation in 1910 was a mere formality.

It appears that you're under a false assumption that the presence of Japan had resulted in the 1910 annexation treaty when it was simply Koreans complete incompetence, as admitted by the officials, that lead to "fish that jumped into the net'.

You're trying to move the goalposts. We're not talking about military conscription, we're talking about forced labour. No civilians were used as forced labour in Britain's colonies at that time. In fact in one of your earlier posts above you made a point of the fact that the National Mobilisation Law used to conscript forced labourers by Japan was distinct from military conscription. But anyway, even if we were talking about military conscription, again you're completely incorrect; there was no duty of military service in British India, Dutch Indonesia, or the American Philippines. And even if there was, it still wouldn't be relevant to the question of how Japan treated its Korean subjects; "everyone else was doing it too" is not a sound justification.

No. We're talking about the duty to serve for the war efforts whether it's military or the gap that's created as a result which in turn leads to labor.

Koreans under Japanese, their conscription for military also came in latter of 1944 but they saw very little action for the war ended by the time they finished the training period. Prior to that, it was strictly volunteer services where in some years, the applicatant and the quota exceeded 60 times.

http://www.jacar.go.jp/DAS/meta/listPhoto?IS_STYLE=default&REFCODE=B02031284700

Pg 17.

Many of those Koreans who volunteered and were accepted were assigned as Prison Guards. (as in watch/guarding P.O.W.'s) which is another reason why they should not be regarded in the same manner as P.O.W's.

Six to seven hundred thousand is not a few. And, yet again, it isn't a matter of specifically recognising them; just of recognising them. Which you have; thank you. Why do you need so badly to obfuscate? Just admit that it happened and that it was bad, and stop with the but, but, but

The seven hundred thousand number, as stated in the MOFA report (reported by Asahi) came " to Japan on their own volition seeking jobs " "..約70万人は自から内地に職を求めてきた個別渡航.."

Koreans worked in the same kind of harsh conditions as POWs and suffered similarly appalling death rates. There is nothing magical about that.

No they did not.

Nigelboy, you admit that Koreans were conscripted under Japanese law to work against their will, and you know that conditions were terrible. Your argument that Japanese also suffered is irrelevant to whether the Koreans who suffered deserve recognition, and your arguments that other nations were doing the same are completely incorrect and amount to nothing more than whataboutery anyway; all this boils down to is that you simply refuse to acknowledge the suffering of Koreans, even though you admit it happened. Why is that?

No. My point is that there is absolutely no reason to acknowledge them specifically for they were under Japanese and were subjected to the same harsh conditions as the Japanese except their term was a lot shorter and significantly less in numbers. In addition, they should not be regarded in the same manner as the P.O.W's because they were fighting alongside with their fellow Japanese and were assigned primary as prison guards.

I hope that's clear.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

the monetary sums owed to Koreans were settled through Agreement Between Japan and the Republic of Korea Concerning the Settlement of Problems in Regard to Property and Claims and Economic Cooperation of 1965

Precisely, nigelboy. Monetary sums were owed to Koreans, and that's why compensation was paid. Why were those sums owed? Because they weren't paid at the time; ergo, it was forced unpaid labour. I'm glad you have finally admitted it even though you perhaps didn't intend to.

It appears that you're under a false assumption that the presence of Japan had resulted in the 1910 annexation treaty when it was simply Koreans complete incompetence, as admitted by the officials, that lead to "fish that jumped into the net'

It appears that you're under the false impression that Japan did not rule Korea by first occupying it with its military in 1905. You can waffle on about fish in nets all you like, it doesn't change the fact that Japan took de facto control of Korea in 1905 following the Treaty of Portsmouth at the end of the Russo - Japanese war. The 1910 annexation merely formalised the existing situation.

No. We're talking about the duty to serve for the war efforts whether it's military or the gap that's created as a result which in turn leads to labor

No, we're talking about forced labour and have been all along. You yourself earlier made the point that conscription for forced labour and military conscription were two different things. That is correct, and we are talking about the former. You can't backtrack on that now that it no longer suits your attempted arguments. In any case, your attempts to draw parallels with conscription in India have totally failed, because there was no conscription there for either labour or the military. Please stop trying to make this factually incorrect and irrelevant point; it's pointless.

Koreans under Japanese, their conscription for military also came in latter of 1944 but they saw very little action for the war ended by the time they finished the training period. Prior to that, it was strictly volunteer services where in some years, the applicatant and the quota exceeded 60 times

Which is completely irrelevant to the fact that a large number of Koreans were used as forced labour.

Many of those Koreans who volunteered and were accepted were assigned as Prison Guards. (as in watch/guarding P.O.W.'s) which is another reason why they should not be regarded in the same manner as P.O.W's

Which is also completely and utterly irrelevant to the fact that a large number of Koreans were used as forced labour! We know many Koreans volunteered. We know many emmigrated of their own accord. We know this already nigelboy, but it doesn't change anything so please stop repeating yourself. It's irrelevant to the fact that many of them were forced against their will to work in slave-like conditions.

The seven hundred thousand number, as stated in the MOFA report (reported by Asahi) came " to Japan on their own volition seeking jobs " "..約70万人は自から内地に職を求めてきた個別渡航.."

Have you got the link for that report? Because the figure you're referring to there appears to be for Koreans in Japan - but Koreans were also forced into labour in Manchuria and Sakhalin and most of all in Korea itself. The total number mobilised from Korea to work in all those locations is many hundreds of thousands according to all sources, with around 10% of them perishing as a result.

Koreans worked in the same kind of harsh conditions as POWs and suffered similarly appalling death rates. There is nothing magical about that.

No they did not.

Yes they did. That is why so many of them died, why Japan agreed to pay compensation in 1965, and why Japan's recent UNESCO bid stated that they did.

No. My point is that there is absolutely no reason to acknowledge them specifically for they were under Japanese and were subjected to the same harsh conditions as the Japanese except their term was a lot shorter and significantly less in numbers. In addition, they should not be regarded in the same manner as the P.O.W's because they were fighting alongside with their fellow Japanese and were assigned primary as prison guards.

Well, it sounds like you agree with Yukio Okamoto that the legal status of Koreans as Japanese citizens at the time means they shouldn't be apologised to. However, he also went on to say that the very fact Koreans had been made into Japanese citizens in the first place was itself something to be apologised for: "The fundamental sin, as I said at the outset, was the annexation of Korea, obliterating their national identities”; so, fair enough. Can you agree with that?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Precisely, nigelboy. Monetary sums were owed to Koreans, and that's why compensation was paid. Why were those sums owed? Because they weren't paid at the time; ergo, it was forced unpaid labour. I'm glad you have finally admitted it even though you perhaps didn't intend to.

No. Many records were lost due to the fire bombings including those of Japanese nationals. It took time to gather the records of wage statements, employment records, and pension. Yes. Koreans were eligible for pension.

http://thutmose.blog.jp/archives/36682630.html

It appears that you're under the false impression that Japan did not rule Korea by first occupying it with its military in 1905. You can waffle on about fish in nets all you like, it doesn't change the fact that Japan took de facto control of Korea in 1905 following the Treaty of Portsmouth at the end of the Russo - Japanese war. The 1910 annexation merely formalised the existing situation.

That's equivalent to stating that Japan is threat of being annexed by U.S. because of the presence of their military. Pure nonsense.

No, we're talking about forced labour and have been all along. You yourself earlier made the point that conscription for forced labour and military conscription were two different things. That is correct, and we are talking about the former. You can't backtrack on that now that it no longer suits your attempted arguments. In any case, your attempts to draw parallels with conscription in India have totally failed, because there was no conscription there for either labour or the military. Please stop trying to make this factually incorrect and irrelevant point; it's pointless.

We are talking about people being immobilized as a result of the war efforts and how many have done so as a sense of duty.

Which is also completely and utterly irrelevant to the fact that a large number of Koreans were used as forced labour! We know many Koreans volunteered. We know many emmigrated of their own accord. We know this already nigelboy, but it doesn't change anything so please stop repeating yourself. It's irrelevant to the fact that many of them were forced against their will to work in slave-like conditions.

Sorry. What's irrelevant as well as insignificant is the number of Koreans that were subjected to the mobilization law.

Have you got the link for that report? Because the figure you're referring to there appears to be for Koreans in Japan - but Koreans were also forced into labour in Manchuria and Sakhalin and most of all in Korea itself. The total number mobilised from Korea to work in all those locations is many hundreds of thousands according to all sources, with around 10% of them perishing as a result.

And what do these Koreans going to Manchuria and Sakhalin have to do with this discussion who are not subjected this mobilization act of 1944? Why are these migrant workers (dekasegi) so important?

Well, it sounds like you agree with Yukio Okamoto that the legal status of Koreans as Japanese citizens at the time means they shouldn't be apologised to. However, he also went on to say that the very fact Koreans had been made into Japanese citizens in the first place was itself something to be apologised for: "The fundamental sin, as I said at the outset, was the annexation of Korea, obliterating their national identities”; so, fair enough. Can you agree with that?

I really don't care what this individual stated for evidence that I presented shows that many Koreans eventually embraced the annexation and was for the war efforts much like Japanese in the mainland. No apology necessary.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Koreans were eligible for pension

Stop trying to wriggle out of the fact that the Japanese government in 1965 paid compensation to Korea for forced labour and the fact that this competely undermines your argument that they were all paid migrant workers of their own volition. If that was the case, the compenstaion wouldn't have been agreed. The Japanese government knows it happened, and so do you. Or are you claiming that the compensation payment was in fact just pension monies? All of it? Pull the other one.

That's equivalent to stating that Japan is threat of being annexed by U.S. because of the presence of their military. Pure nonsense

Utter balderdash. It isn't equivalent to any hypothetical nonsense whatsoever about the US in Japan. It's just what happened; in 1905 Japanese troops took de facto control of Korea and presented Korea with a treaty it had no choice but to sign. (However - not that it really matters - but if the US did decide to annex Japan using the troops stationed here at present, they good probably do so quite easily)

We are talking about people being immobilized as a result of the war efforts and how many have done so as a sense of duty

No we are not. We're talking about forced labour. The fact that many contributed to the war effort from a sense of duty is irrelevant to those who were forced. You cannot deny the latter merely by pointing out the former; they are not mutually exclusive. You've tried this argument ad nauseum but it is a complete logical failure.

Sorry. What's irrelevant as well as insignificant is the number of Koreans that were subjected to the mobilization law

Hundreds of thousands of people is not insignificant. Japan acknowledged the numbers in the 1965 treaty, and the UNESCO bid recently acknowledged the use of forced labour on industrial sites. If you won't take it from the Japanese government then I suppose you'll just keep on denying it forever with your fingers stuck in your ears, regardless.

And what do these Koreans going to Manchuria and Sakhalin have to do with this discussion who are not subjected this mobilization act of 1944? Why are these migrant workers (dekasegi) so important?

You keep banging on about migrant workers. Once again, the fact that many moved to work of their own free will does not change the fact that many were forced. The logic of this argument is completely and utterly flawed.

I really don't care what this individual stated for evidence that I presented shows that many Koreans eventually embraced the annexation and was for the war efforts much like Japanese in the mainland. No apology necessary

And once again, the fact that many Koreans supported the war efforts does not change the fact that many did not and does not change any of the facts about forced labour. It really does simply boil down to you refusing to accept what is widely accepted because, well, you just don't like it.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

whilst Hikaru Kimura is saying sorry to Mr Murphy, he should fly over to the UK and apologise to some of our senior vets as well! the USA were not the only ones incarcerated in Japan, Burma.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Stop trying to wriggle out of the fact that the Japanese government in 1965 paid compensation to Korea for forced labour and the fact that this competely undermines your argument that they were all paid migrant workers of their own volition. If that was the case, the compenstaion wouldn't have been agreed. The Japanese government knows it happened, and so do you. Or are you claiming that the compensation payment was in fact just pension monies? All of it? Pull the other one.

Compensation was agreed. Most of the unpaid portion were deduction from gross wages which the Koreans didn't retrieve when the employers couldn't get in contact with them. Why on god's earth would employers keep record of such things when they had no intention of paying them?

Utter balderdash. It isn't equivalent to any hypothetical nonsense whatsoever about the US in Japan. It's just what happened; in 1905 Japanese troops took de facto control of Korea and presented Korea with a treaty it had no choice but to sign. (However - not that it really matters - but if the US did decide to annex Japan using the troops stationed here at present, they good probably do so quite easily)

It had no choice to sign for their own failures to govern themselves. Military presence had nothing to do with it.

No we are not. We're talking about forced labour. The fact that many contributed to the war effort from a sense of duty is irrelevant to those who were forced. You cannot deny the latter merely by pointing out the former; they are not mutually exclusive. You've tried this argument ad nauseum but it is a complete logical failure.

So are we now limiting the scope to those affected by the immobilization law? Can you please make up your mind?

Hundreds of thousands of people is not insignificant. Japan acknowledged the numbers in the 1965 treaty, and the UNESCO bid recently acknowledged the use of forced labour on industrial sites. If you won't take it from the Japanese government then I suppose you'll just keep on denying it forever with your fingers stuck in your ears, regardless.

Your reference to "hundred of thousands" were those who people prior to the immobilization law which as stated previously, the number is insignificant. The game you play with the UNESCO is exactly the same game that was played by the Kono Statement.

If you really want to be specific,

In 1939, to help the war efforts, the Japanese government implemented an immobilization policy where millions of Japanese In Japan were conscripted to various labor needs. The said policy was exempt for Korean Japanese in Korean Peninsula until September of 1944.

The time length lasted mere seven month for in around March of 1945, the route from Pusan was compromised.(かくていわゆる朝鮮人徴用労務者が導入されたのは一九四四年九月から一九四五年三月(一九四五年三月以後は関釜間の通常運航が途絶したためその導入は事実上困難になった)までの短期間であった。)-MOFA Bulletin Volume 10.

So Yoshitssune. It essentially boils down that Koreans had 'special priviledge'.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Your claim that Japan's military presence in korea had nothing to do with the 1905 Korea - Japan treaty is absolute poppycock. If Japan had not taken de facto control of the peninsula and presented the Korean leadership with a treaty to sign, then clearly there would have been no treaty to sign and Korea would have governed itself. Poor governance alone does not lead to annexation by a neighboring country.

And no it does not boil down to Koreans having special privilege. You make it sound like they should be grateful! The fact is they suffered under Japanese rule. You have tacitly admitted this several times. You have acknowledged that they were not all paid for their labour and that compensation was later paid as a result - your bickering about why they weren't paid is by the by. You have acknowledged that some of the Koreans who worked in Japan & China were taken there against their will under the Mobilisation law - your bickering about the length of time that law applied to them is by the by. And in any case many thousands of deaths is something to be apologised for even if they were being paid and even if they hadn't been conscripted.

You have acknowledged that they suffered because you have pointed out that Japanese suffered too.

You have acknowledged that they suffered because you have incorrectly claimed that other colonial powers were doing the same things to their colonies at the time.

You have acknowledged that some of them were conscripted against their will.

You have acknowledged that some of them weren't paid.

The Japanese government knows it happened, and so do you; and I know you do. All your bickering and waffle is just obfuscation, attempting to wriggle out of facing the uncomfortable truth that in the 1940s Japan (ab)used forced labourers from multiple sources including Korea.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Sorry Yoshitsune but you offered nothing except repeating the false narrative without any sort of evidence to back it up whatsoever.

The bottom line is that the immobilization law was implemented to the Japanese in Japan first and foremost throughout the war while the Koreans in the Korean peninsula were subjected to this for a mere 7 months and as per MOFA bulletin, the amount of labourers amounted to 数はごく少部分 (small amount) that not even statistically significant.

Your argument essentially have degraded to where you have loosened the definition of 'forced' to where a person who had to go to work despite being sick because he/she had used his/her sick leave already.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Sorry Yoshitsune but you offered nothing except repeating the false narrative without any sort of evidence to back it up whatsoever

The false narrative? Pull the other one again. Your narrative of Korea magically being occupied by Japan simply through having an incompetent government and of Koreans being ungrateful for their special treatment under Japanese rule is the false narrative.

The bottom line is that the immobilization law was implemented to the Japanese in Japan first and foremost throughout the war

The bottom line is that that much-repeated fact of yours, true though it may be, remains irrelevant - no matter how many times you repeat it - to the matter of Korean forced labour.

Your argument essentially have degraded to where you have loosened the definition of 'forced' to where a person who had to go to work despite being sick because he/she had used his/her sick leave already

Guffaw. I haven't mentioned sick pay at all; you're blustering. 'Forced' is - and has been throughout this entire conversation - conscripted and made to work in harsh conditions (re food, living arrangements, safety, lack of medicine etc) often without pay and often resulting in death. You've acknowledged all of the points I've raised (see my last post), albeit accidentally but that's your own fault; every argument you've made in this entire discourse has failed under its own flawed logic.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The false narrative? Pull the other one again. Your narrative of Korea magically being occupied by Japan simply through having an incompetent government and of Koreans being ungrateful for their special treatment under Japanese rule is the false narrative

Yes. Treaty of Shimonoseki which resulted in the independence of Korea and the birth of 韓国。

"...To be sure, by treaty it was solemnly covenanted that Korea should remain independent. But Korea was itself helpless to enforce the treaty, and it was out of the question to suppose that any other nation with no interest of its own at stake would attempt to do for the Koreans what they were utterly unable to do for themselves....Korea has shown its utter inability to stand by itself."

The bottom line is that that much-repeated fact of yours, true though it may be, remains irrelevant - no matter how many times you repeat it - to the matter of Korean forced labour.

Which is insignficant compared to the Japanese in Japan at that time.

Guffaw. I haven't mentioned sick pay at all; you're blustering. 'Forced' is - and has been throughout this entire conversation - conscripted and made to work in harsh conditions (re food, living arrangements, safety, lack of medicine etc) often without pay and often resulting in death. You've acknowledged all of the points I've raised (see my last post), albeit accidentally but that's your own fault; every argument you've made in this entire discourse has failed under its own flawed logic.

And you have yet to give a reason why Koreans should be elevetated to be mentioned specifically when I pointed out to you ad nauseum that they were the LEAST affected among the people of Japan at that time.

And for this, they should not be mentioned in the same category as that of POW. It's that simple Yoshitsune.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

And now you pull the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki out of the air? Wriggle, squirm. You know I wasn't talking about that. The treaty in question was the 1905 Korea - Japan treaty.

"Korea has shown its utter inability to stand by itself"

...so that means we can go in there, take its resources, force an assimilation policy on its people to adopt Japanese names etc and then ultimately use them as slave labour (and who / what were you quoting there anyway?)

Which is insignficant compared to the Japanese in Japan at that time

Not relevant.

And you have yet to give a reason why Koreans should be elevated

I am also yet to even say that they should be elevated; in fact I have said repeatedly and very clearly that this isn't about elevation, so stop talking about elevation of Koreans like that's something I've called for.

You're making arguments against things I haven't even said.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

And now you pull the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki out of the air? Wriggle, squirm. You know I wasn't talking about that. The treaty in question was the 1905 Korea - Japan treaty.

Not out of thin air. It's essentially a treaty that gave Korea the independence as a result of Japan's victory over Qing.

Any subsequent agreements are 'protectorate' which is to protect diplomatically or militarily against third parties.

What resources? It was an annexation which resulted in

"The Japanese administration in Korea has done more to advance the interests of Korea than any other government has done to advance the interests of any country in the world. And if Korea were a self-governing country instead of a Japanese colonial dependency, be hailed throughout the Western world as an astounding example of national progress."-Alleyne Ireland "New Korea"

There you go using the word 'slave'. 4% per annum GNP growth, double the population and life expectancy in just 30+ years, it's an accomplishment that should be mentioned but these are whitewashed by both Japan and Korea.

As Ireland continues.

".... I have formed the opinion 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 technique of administration."

I am also yet to even say that they should be elevated; in fact I have said repeatedly and very clearly that this isn't about elevation, so stop talking about elevation of Koreans like that's something I've called for.

Then what is that you seek? Koreans were LEAST affected the immobilization, they participated in the war voluntarily where they were mostly assigned as prison guard with many convicted for war crimes thereafter. So tell me why do Koreans deserve to be in the same side with that of POW?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Not out of thin air. It's essentially a treaty that gave Korea the independence as a result of Japan's victory over Qing

As far as this discussion is concerned, you pulled it out of thin air. I was talking about the 1905 treaty and you know I was. I know full well what the Treaty of Shimonoseki was thank you, but it doesn't change the fact that the subsequent 1905 treaty and later annexation were forced on Korea by Japan and took away the independence of which you speak.

What resources?

All of the resources in all Korea, as a result of territorially absorbing all of Korea.

Re Irelands "New Korea": very smart (not to mention most disingenuous) of you to quote from a book on Japan's governance of Korea that was written in 1926, well before the events that we're discussing. Nice try but unforunately I can use Google. We are talking about human rights abuses in the 1940s, not the 1920s.

Then what is that you seek? Koreans were LEAST affected the immobilization, they participated in the war voluntarily where they were mostly assigned as prison guard with many convicted for war crimes thereafter. So tell me why do Koreans deserve to be in the same side with that of POW?

Merely recognition and ackowledgement of the fact that they suffered under the Japanese. All of your ecquivocation arguments have been dealt with above, but yet again:

Koreans were LEAST affected the immobilization

Another tacit admission that they WERE affected. And to those Koreans that were it is utterly irrelevant who else was.

they participated in the war voluntarily

Only some of them, and we're obviously not talking about those ones.

they were mostly assigned as prison guard

Only some of them, and we're obviously not talking about those ones.

why do Koreans deserve to be in the same side with that of POW?

You already asked me that a few posts back. My answer was "Koreans worked in the same kind of harsh conditions as POWs and suffered similarly appalling death rates" to which all you could say was "No they did not", and to which I further replied "Yes they did. That is why so many of them died, why Japan agreed to pay compensation in 1965, and why Japan's recent UNESCO bid stated that they did". All of your bickering is just bickering and doesn't change any of those facts. Maybe you need to stop arguing with me and go ask the Japanese government why they think that so many Koreans suffered as forced labourers. The answer of course is simply that they did.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

As far as this discussion is concerned, you pulled it out of thin air. I was talking about the 1905 treaty and you know I was. I know full well what the Treaty of Shimonoseki was thank you, but it doesn't change the fact that the subsequent 1905 treaty and later annexation were forced on Korea by Japan and took away the independence of which you speak.

What's the relevance? It still doesn't change the fact that despite the protection, the Korean government utterly failed to govern themselves which is why the "fish jumped into the net" resulted.

Re Irelands "New Korea": very smart (not to mention most disingenuous) of you to quote from a book on Japan's governance of Korea that was written in 1926, well before the events that we're discussing. Nice try but unforunately I can use Google. We are talking about human rights abuses in the 1940s, not the 1920s.

Well, you did mention the annexation and how people of Korea were abused since then.

You already asked me that a few posts back. My answer was "Koreans worked in the same kind of harsh conditions as POWs and suffered similarly appalling death rates" to which all you could say was "No they did not", and to which I further replied "Yes they did. That is why so many of them died, why Japan agreed to pay compensation in 1965, and why Japan's recent UNESCO bid stated that they did". All of your bickering is just bickering and doesn't change any of those facts. Maybe you need to stop arguing with me and go ask the Japanese government why they think that so many Koreans suffered as forced labourers. The answer of course is simply that they did.

Working in the mines is still a life threatning work with thousands and thousands of die each year throughout the world. Why is Korean deaths need to be elevated or recognized versus that of the hudreds times more death of Japanese under the same condition during that period? Your use of words like "forced" and "suffered" completely lacks context or you choose to avoid them completely because doing so defeats your repeated narrative.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

What's the relevance? It still doesn't change the fact that despite the protection, the Korean government utterly failed to govern themselves which is why the "fish jumped into the net" resulted

It seems you've lost track of why we're discussing Japan's annexation of Korea. The relevance is that if you want to make the legalistic argument that Koreans were Japanese citizens at the time so there is no need to recognise their suffering, then you instead need to acknowledge that the annexation itself forced them to be Japanese citizens in the first place - as does Yukio Okamoto of MM: "The fundamental sin, as I said at the outset, was the annexation of Korea". And it was the 1905 treaty that forced them to accept Japanese dominion - no, not like a fish jumping into a net; forced, at the end of the barrel of a gun.

Well, you did mention the annexation and how people of Korea were abused since then

Our discussion of the annexation started for the reasons stated above. The forced labour in terrible conditions which is the main point of this discussion happened mostly in the 1940s. My discussion of the annexation with you doesn't mean you can get away with quoting a 1926 book as evidence against abuses in the 1940s. That is really most dishonest of you, and you can consider yourself completely busted.

Working in the mines is still a life threatning work with thousands and thousands of die each year throughout the world

Indeed. So? It's irrelevant to forced labour in WW2. In any case we're not only talking about mines, and the death rate in those Japanese mines / shipyards / etc was far higher than in mines elsewhere either then or today.

Why is Korean deaths need to be elevated or recognized versus that of the hudreds times more death of Japanese under the same condition during that period?

This elevation theme of yours is particularly tedious. Once again, not elevated; just recognised. Once again, not versus the Japanese who also suffered; I know Japanese also suffered, but their suffering is simply not relevant to that of the Koreans who suffered. You can't refuse to recognise the suffering of a group of people based on the fact that another group of people suffered too. Non sequitur.

Your use of words like "forced" and "suffered" completely lacks context or you choose to avoid them completely because doing so defeats your repeated narrative

This argument doesn't make any sense at all. It's pretty clear what is meant by forced and suffered, and there is plenty of context throughout this discussion about why they apply. You haven't "defeated my narrative" in any way whatsoever; every single one of your arguments on this page has been a total failure. And it isn't my narrative anyway; see Japanese compensation to Korea in 1965, see Japanese acknowledgement of forced labour at UNESCO sites, see the quote from Mr Okamoto above, etc

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

It seems you've lost track of why we're discussing Japan's annexation of Korea.

And as I have repeated several times, it's due to the failure of the Korean government and if there was to be any blame whatsoever, it's their own people. This wasn't a proclamation by the Japanese government. It was a bilateral treaty executed by both governments.

Our discussion of the annexation started for the reasons stated above. The forced labour in terrible conditions which is the main point of this discussion happened mostly in the 1940s. My discussion of the annexation with you doesn't mean you can get away with quoting a 1926 book as evidence against abuses in the 1940s. That is really most dishonest of you, and you can consider yourself completely busted.

And if you simply want to stick to the mobilization law, that's fine by me. But don't go around ignoring that Koreans life in the peninsula improved dramatically.

Indeed. So? It's irrelevant to forced labour in WW2. In any case we're not only talking about mines, and the death rate in those Japanese mines / shipyards / etc was far higher than in mines elsewhere either then or today.

Do you have anything to back this up?

This elevation theme of yours is particularly tedious. Once again, not elevated; just recognised. Once again, not versus the Japanese who also suffered; I know Japanese also suffered, but their suffering is simply not relevant to that of the Koreans who suffered. You can't refuse to recognise the suffering of a group of people based on the fact that another group of people suffered too. Non sequitur.

They suffered considerable less. That's my point.

This argument doesn't make any sense at all. It's pretty clear what is meant by forced and suffered, and there is plenty of context throughout this discussion about why they apply. You haven't "defeated my narrative" in any way whatsoever; every single one of your arguments on this page has been a total failure. And it isn't my narrative anyway; see Japanese compensation to Korea in 1965, see Japanese acknowledgement of forced labour at UNESCO sites, see the quote from Mr Okamoto above, etc.

Of course I've defeated your repeated narrative. By conveniently leaving out the historical background during that time where Koreans were the least to suffer, their recognition should not be anywhere close to that of the Japanese in the mainland and certainly not in the vicinity of the POW as addressed in this article.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It was a bilateral treaty executed by both governments

It was a bilateral treaty forced upon one government by another.

But don't go around ignoring that Koreans life in the peninsula improved dramatically

How about you don't go aroud quoting 1926 books when the events in question happened after that? And even if life in Korea did improve dramatically according to certain measures, that still would not make it okay to deny that some Koreans were used as forced labour. Another non sequitur.

Do you have anything to back this up?

It isn't very relevant, in fact it's a complete tangent; as I said above the dangers inherent in mining today aren't relevant to forced labour in WW2, but anyway:

US mining fatality rates, showing around 0.2% in the WW2 years (and much lower today):

http://www.msha.gov/stats/centurystats/coalstats.asp

UK mining fatalities for the WW2 years, showing a total of 4,700 (from an undefined number of miners):

http://www.cmhrc.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lodts18.htm

Some figures for Japanese forced labour projects:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Japan#World_War_II

I know you're going to claim those figures are all inflated / a made up Korean conspiracy bla bla etc, but I don't think even the most deluded nationalist can really think they're out by two full orders of magnitude. Even if I let you argue that the true figures were only one tenth of what that Wikipedia page says, that would still be very much worse than the above mining stats for the US & UK.

They suffered considerable less. That's my point

Which doesn't stand because it's irrelevant. You can't refuse to recognise the suffering of a group of people on the basis that another group of people also suffered. Non sequitur. Even if they did suffer less, they still suffered; so just acknowledge that without saying "but, but".

Of course I've defeated your repeated narrative

Only in your fantasy reality.

By conveniently leaving out the historical background during that time where Koreans were the least to suffer, their recognition should not be anywhere close to that of the Japanese in the mainland and certainly not in the vicinity of the POW as addressed in this article

I'm not conveniently leaving things out; I'm leaving irrelevant things out. Now, once again you tacitly admit that they suffered. That's all you need to do, acknowledge that they suffered. Yes, other people also suffered; yes, other people suffered worse. But these people still suffered! So just acknowledge it, and stop trying to obfuscate, equivocate, and wriggle and squirm and lie your way out of it.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

It was a bilateral treaty forced upon one government by another

Not even close. "Fish jumped into the net" which best describes the situation. This resulted due to the failure of the Korean government. It's practically a self admission.

How about you don't go aroud quoting 1926 books when the events in question happened after that? And even if life in Korea did improve dramatically according to certain measures, that still would not make it okay to deny that some Koreans were used as forced labour. Another non sequitur.

I wouldn't even mention it if you hadn't brought this so-called 'struggles' during the era.

It isn't very relevant, in fact it's a complete tangent; as I said above the dangers inherent in mining today aren't relevant to forced labour in WW2, but anyway:

For Japan, from 1900 to 1980, total of about 5,500 dead or missing.

<http://www.econ.ryukoku.ac.jp/~tlee/seminar-8.files/G1-%E9%89%B1%E5%B1%B1%E5%8A%B4%E5%83%8D%E3%81%AB%E3%81%8A%E3%81%91%E3%82%8B%E8%81%B7%E6%A5%AD%E7%92%B0%E5%A2%83-ver2.pdf

Which doesn't stand because it's irrelevant. You can't refuse to recognise the suffering of a group of people on the basis that another group of people also suffered. Non sequitur. Even if they did suffer less, they still suffered; so just acknowledge that without saying "but, but".

It's relevant. It's heart of the argument. It's not whether or not group of people tested positive on a 'suffering' litmus test considering that fact that everybody else around them at that time tested positve. It's like a guy boasting about his scratch covered by a band aid while the rest of the listening crowd has cast on his arms and legs. What kind of messed up logic would it be to specifically recognize the least suffered and/or least contributed? It makes no sense other than your desire to implement the blanket statement of "Koreans suffered".

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Not even close. "Fish jumped into the net" which best describes the situation. This resulted due to the failure of the Korean government. It's practically a self admission

Utter tosh.

Faced with the disadvantage of having the Imperial palace occupied by Japanese Imperial Army troops, who were also deployed at strategic locations throughout the country, the Koreans were left with little alternative but to sign... the Koreans signed the treaty if not under duress, then certainly under the threat of military action

(From http://www.conservapedia.com/Eulsa_Treaty)

Delegates of both Empires met in Seoul to resolve differences in matters pertaining to Korea’s future foreign policy; however, with the Korean Imperial palace under occupation by Japanese troops, and the Imperial Japanese Army stationed at strategic locations throughout Korea, the Korean side was at a distinct disadvantage in the discussions... On November 9, 1905, Itō Hirobumi arrived in Seoul and gave a letter from the Emperor of Japan to Gojong, Emperor of Korea, asking him to sign the treaty. On November 15, 1905, he ordered Japanese troops to encircle the Korean imperial palace and threatened the emperor in order to force him to agree to the treaty... Ito pressured the cabinet with the implied, and later stated, threat of physical bodily harm, to sign the treaty.[6] According to 한계옥 (Han-Gyeok), Korean Prime minister Han Gyu-seol disagreed, shouting loudly. Ito ordered the guards to lock him in a room and said if he continued screaming, they could kill him

(From Wikipedia)

Letter from King Gojong to King Edward VII:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eulsa_retraction.jpg

"The signature of our cabinet were obtained by intimidation"

“…I the Emperor of the Korean Empire, declare that this Korea-Japan Agreement has no legal effect because this was concluded unlawfully by force. I did not sign the document and I will never sign it…”

(- King Gojong, quoted from http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/koreas-political-situation-dokdo.html)

Fish jumping into a net? No; a treaty forced by one party upon the other.

I wouldn't even mention it if you hadn't brought this so-called 'struggles' during the era

You shouldn't have mentioned it at all given how dishonest it was.

For Japan, from 1900 to 1980, total of about 5,500 dead or missing

That shows deaths in coal mining accidents in Japan. But most of the deaths under Japanese forced labour happened outisde Japan; what are the figures for Manchuria, Sakhalin, the Korean peninsula, etc? Furthermore most of the deaths under Japanese forced labour in WW2 resulted from exhaustion, disease, starvation, and sometimes direct physical abuse or execution, not from accidents. Furthermore most of the deaths did not occur in coal mines; furthermore I very much doubt that when a mine roof collapsed on a group of conscripted miners in Japan in 1944 that they even bothered to record it as an accident.

It's relevant. It's heart of the argument. It's not whether or not group of people tested positive on a 'suffering' litmus test considering that fact that everybody else around them at that time tested positve. It's like a guy boasting about his scratch covered by a band aid while the rest of the listening crowd has cast on his arms and legs. What kind of messed up logic would it be to specifically recognize the least suffered and/or least contributed? It makes no sense other than your desire to implement the blanket statement of "Koreans suffered"

Well, it looks like we've made some progress here. You are no longer asserting that Koreans didn't suffer; in fact you have repeatedly tacitly admitted it. Indeed, the argument is now simply that you don't think the suffering of those Koreans should be acknowledged or apologised for. And towards the ends of making that argument, the fact that other people suffered is in fact completely and utterly irrelevant. You can't refuse to recognise the suffering of a group of people on the basis that another group of people also suffered. We're not talking about band aids and plaster casts, we're talking about people who were forced into labour in harsh conditions, often without pay and often resulting in death. All of those people should be recognised and acknowledged regardless of which group they belonged to; western POWs, Indonesian romusha, Japanese conscripts, Chinese conscripts, etc etc, and, yes, this also includes the Koreans among them. It is not messed up logic to recognise all of those who suffered; the vast majority of people would think it was normal decent human logic. What is messed up is to refuse to recognise one specific group within the whole because, well you just don't like it (or them); it isn't about numbers, or legal status, or any of the other rubbish you've tried to argue. It's about human suffering, and we know who was responsible, and we know who suffered, and they should all be recognised.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Utter tosh.

Pure urban legend. As stated by Professor Tamaki Harada states

"...しかし、原田環氏(広島女子大教授)の最新の研究によれば、(「第二次日韓協約調印と大韓帝国皇帝高宗」・『青丘学術論集』所載・二〇〇四年四月)皇帝自身への脅迫どころか、高宗皇帝自身が協約締結のリーダーシップを発揮していたことが明らかになっている。

 原田教授は、『五大臣上疏文』などのテキストを中心に高宗皇帝の言動を検討し、「実際の高宗は老練な宮廷政治家であり、韓国の外交権を日本に委譲することには反対であったが、第二次日韓協約の締結に際しては、日本の協約案を修正して調印する方向に韓国政府の大臣達を動かしている」と述べる。"

According to the latest work by Prof. Harada, it was the King himself who displayed his leadership in the execution of the treaty where he even edited Japan's original draft.

http://www.seisaku-center.net/node/188

<http://www.jkcf.or.jp/history_arch/second/3-02j.pdf

It's only when the public outcry intensified that the King did a complete 180.

That shows deaths in coal mining accidents in Japan. But most of the deaths under Japanese forced labour happened outisde Japan; what are the figures for Manchuria, Sakhalin, the Korean peninsula, etc?

There was no mobilization order in those area.

Well, it looks like we've made some progress here. You are no longer asserting that Koreans didn't suffer; in fact you have repeatedly tacitly admitted it. Indeed, the argument is now simply that you don't think the suffering of those Koreans should be acknowledged or apologised for

Yes. I made a point of quantifying the 'suffering' by briefly describing the situation in Japan and her citizens (including Koreans) at that time. And by doing so, it is apparent that the degree in which the Koreans 'suffered' during those time are of the least. Therefore, my position is that the 'suffering' of Koreans should not merit any 'specific' recognition and certainly not in the same line with that of POW. I believe it's disgraceful that such position should be even contemplated considering the fact that Koreans were for the war efforts and those who joined were mostly assigned as prison guards.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

And does Pr. Harada's work disprove that the Japanese military was in de facto control of Korea at the time and that the Imperial Palace in Seoul was surrounded by Japanese troops at the time?

Does it prove anything at all? Not according to this:

http://m.dbpia.co.kr/Journal/ArticleDetail/1282434

There was no mobilization order in those area

The mobilisation law sent people to those areas. Anyway it's not relevant to your attempted point about Japanese mine deaths. And anyway regardless of mobilisation laws there was forced mobilisation in Manchukuo:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_Manchukuo#Forced_labor

This one accident killed over a thousand Chinese:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benxihu_Colliery

Thankfully the Japanese have acknowledged this and apparently erected a monument to the dead - probably why we don't hear about it. Perhaps if the same kind of specific acknowledgement were made at the sites of other atrocities we would stop hearing about those too.

I made a point of quantifying the 'suffering' by briefly describing the situation in Japan and her citizens (including Koreans) at that time. And by doing so, it is apparent that the degree in which the Koreans 'suffered' during those time are of the least

You're quantifying suffering? Callous. And who made you the arbiter of suffering? The Koreans suffered; you admit that. So just stop equivocating. You can't refuse to recognise the suffering of a group of people on the basis that another group of people also suffered.

Therefore, my position is that the 'suffering' of Koreans should not merit any 'specific' recognition and certainly not in the same line with that of POW

It's not about specific recognition. It's about recognition for them as well as recognition for all others who suffered. There is no need to quantify who suffered more; just acknowledge everyone who did. These were people, not numbers. Your position is not that "Koreans should not merit any 'specific' recognition" at all; your position is that Koreans merit no recognition, despite the fact that you admit many of them suffered.

Koreans were for the war efforts

Only some of them, and that isn't relevant to those Koreans who were used as forced labourers.

those who joined were mostly assigned as prison guards

Only some of them, and that isn't relevant to those Koreans who were used as forced labourers.

You've already tried those claims above; and while the statements may be true in the case of some Koreans, they're certainly not true for all Koreans and they are irrelevant to the issue of forced labour.

I believe it's disgraceful that such position should be even contemplated

And I believe it's disgraceful to refuse to recognise the suffering of one specific ethnic group amongst the various groups who suffered. All those people suffered; acknowledge them all.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

And does Pr. Harada's work disprove that the Japanese military was in de facto control of Korea at the time and that the Imperial Palace in Seoul was surrounded by Japanese troops at the time?

He doesn't mention it. But I can see why there was a presence there for protection of the members for both sides as evidenced by the arson of Korean minister's houses and assisination attempts.

Does it prove anything at all? Not according to this

Not really. It's the same lame argument used because they (Korean professors who participated in this 2001 symposium) didn't like the contents of the Minister's memorial.

The mobilisation law sent people to those areas. Anyway it's not relevant to your attempted point about Japanese mine deaths. And anyway regardless of mobilisation laws there was forced mobilisation in Manchukuo:

Mobilization law did not "sent people to those areas".

You're quantifying suffering? Callous. And who made you the arbiter of suffering? The Koreans suffered; you admit that. So just stop equivocating. You can't refuse to recognise the suffering of a group of people on the basis that another group of people also suffered.

Yes. I hate blanket statements that leaves an impression that Koreans were the only ones who suffered.

It's not about specific recognition. It's about recognition for them as well as recognition for all others who suffered. There is no need to quantify who suffered more; just acknowledge everyone who did. These were people, not numbers. Your position is not that "Koreans should not merit any 'specific' recognition" at all; your position is that Koreans merit no recognition, despite the fact that you admit many of them suffered.

Of course I do. It's about putting the situation into perspective then determine such recognition is applicable.

Only some of them

Actually it's most. You can be for the war effort and at the same time be subjected to the mobilization order.

Only some of them, and that isn't relevant to those Koreans who were used as forced labourers.

But they're Koreans though. It seems like you're obsessed with the "quantity" in which you have criticized me for.

Or are you saying that you are also willing to accept the inclusion of "SOME" in your point as well? (As in "some Koreans suffered")

And I believe it's disgraceful to refuse to recognise the suffering of one specific ethnic group amongst the various groups who suffered. All those people suffered; acknowledge them all.

I think we have come to an agreement.

In 1939, to help the war efforts, the Japanese government implemented an immobilization policy where millions of Japanese In Japan were conscripted to serve various labor needs. The said policy was exempt for Korean Japanese in Korean Peninsula until September of 1944 when few were conscripted to help the war efforts.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

He doesn't mention it

Unsurprising.

But I can see why there was a presence there for protection of the members for both sides as evidenced by the arson of Korean minister's houses and assisination attempts

Haha. Like the assassination of Queen Min ten years earlier?

Mobilization law did not "sent people to those areas"

The mobilisation law sent people to those areas:

Japanese authorities extended the provisions of the National Mobilization Law to include the conscription of Korean workers for factories and mines on the Korean peninsula, Manchukuo, and the involuntary relocation of workers to Japan itself as needed (Wikipedia)

National Mobilization Law. This leads to conscription of Korean workers in Japanese mines and factories in Korea, Manchukuo and Japan, including Sakhalin. In total about 5.4 million Koreans were conscripted and 670,000 were sent without having any choice to Japan where an estimated 60,000 died from harsh mistreatment and dangerous working conditions (JapanTimes)

Either way it's still not relevant to your attempted point about Japanese mine deaths, which is a complete tangent anway. The document you linked was only for coal mines in Japan, but we're talking about all kinds of mines and other industrial / construction / engineering sites throughout Japan, Korean peninsula, Manchuria and Sakhalin. Whether people were sent there under the mobilisation law or not has no bearing on how awful the safety was: and there was also forced mobilisation within Manchukuo itself.

Yes. I hate blanket statements that leaves an impression that Koreans were the only ones who suffered

I haven't made any such blanket statement though, have I? In fact in near enough every post on this page I have clearly told you that it's not about elevating Koreans or saying they were the only ones who suffered; it's about recognising that they did suffer along with various other groups. See my 2nd previous post for a list (incomplete) of other groups who also suffered.

Of course I do [admit they suffered]. It's about putting the situation into perspective then determine such recognition is applicable

If they suffered then recognition is applicable, period.

Actually it's most

Based on what survey? And anyway it's still irrelevant:

But they're Koreans though

So?! The point is to recognise & acknowledge those Koreans who were forced labourers; the matter of Koreans willingly serving the Japanese, while interesting, is immaterial.

Or are you saying that you are also willing to accept the inclusion of "SOME" in your point as well? (As in "some Koreans suffered")

No, I would say many Koreans suffered.

And I believe it's disgraceful to refuse to recognise the suffering of one specific ethnic group amongst the various groups who suffered. All those people suffered; acknowledge them all.

I think we have come to an agreement

So you agree with my statement that: it's disgraceful to refuse to recognise the suffering of one specific ethnic group amongst the various groups who suffered. All those people suffered; acknowledge them all.

Good. Thank you. But you just can't help following it up with an ecquivocation!

In 1939, to help the war efforts, the Japanese government implemented an immobilization policy where millions of Japanese In Japan were conscripted to serve various labor needs. The said policy was exempt for Korean Japanese in Korean Peninsula until September of 1944 when few were conscripted to help the war efforts

Not few. And however many it was, you have to acknowledge that it happened to them and recognise it without ecquivocation. They are / were individual people, they suffered, and it should be recognised and apologised for.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The mobilisation law sent people to those areas:

This is false. 国民徴用令, enacted in 1939, were not applicable to those you describe. This is another example wikipedia (English version) providing inaccurate information. As stated in the MOFA bulletin which touches this procedure, the migration of workers were strictly voluntary. In 1942, the policy changed where companies would request the local governments agencies to place a want ad and collect applicants but it was still voluntary and is not under the 1939 mobilization law.

I haven't made any such blanket statement though, have I? In fact in near enough every post on this page I have clearly told you that it's not about elevating Koreans or saying they were the only ones who suffered; it's about recognising that they did suffer along with various other groups. See my 2nd previous post for a list (incomplete) of other groups who also suffered.

What you are essentially doing is to maximizing the minimum (Koreans) and minimizing the maximum (Japanese in Japan) in regards to the war time labor. In addition, it's completely erroneous to place the POW's along with the people of Japan (which includes Koreans). It's distortion.

Based on what survey? And anyway it's still irrelevant

Based on the number of applicants and the quota which exceeded over 60 times. The link was provided already.

No, I would say many Koreans suffered.

Compared to what Japanese in Japan had been subjected to under the same law, a "few" is even an upgrade.

Not few. And however many it was, you have to acknowledge that it happened to them and recognise it without ecquivocation. They are / were individual people, they suffered, and it should be recognised and apologised for

Like I said, compared to what Japanesein Japan, it's a few. It's called perspective. I don't see necessity of recognition when you can basically argue that EVERYBODY 'suffered' in one way or another when your country is at war.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

This is false. 国民徴用令, enacted in 1939, were not applicable to those you describe. This is another example wikipedia (English version) providing inaccurate information

Either way it's still not relevant to your attempted point about Japanese mine deaths, which is a complete tangent anway. The document you linked was only for coal mines in Japan, but we're talking about all kinds of mines and other industrial / construction / engineering sites throughout Japan, Korean peninsula, Manchuria and Sakhalin. Whether people were sent there under the mobilisation law or not has no bearing on how awful the safety was: and there was also forced mobilisation within Manchukuo itself.

What you are essentially doing is to maximizing the minimum (Koreans) and minimizing the maximum (Japanese in Japan) in regards to the war time labor

I'm not doing that at all. I'm not minimising or maximising anything. I have clearly told you that it's not about elevating Koreans or saying they were the only ones who suffered; it's about recognising that they did suffer along with various other groups. See my 3rd previous post for a list (incomplete) of other groups who also suffered.

In addition, it's completely erroneous to place the POW's along with the people of Japan (which includes Koreans). It's distortion

I'm not placing the POWs along with Japanese or Koreans or anyone else; I'm simply stating that each of those groups suffered. And that includes Koreans. And the reason we are having this debate is because you started out refusing to acknowledge that. But you have since admitted it:

"...your position is that Koreans merit no recognition, despite the fact that you admit many of them suffered."

"Of course I do. It's about putting the situation into perspective then determine such recognition is applicable."

So the argument is not whether they suffered, it's whether it should be recognised. I'm saying that all who suffered deserve to be recognised; you're saying that Koreans don't deserve to be recognised, for a bunch of logically unsound reasons which are really just masking your seemingly pathological inability to show empathy for the suffering of Koreans.

Based on the number of applicants and the quota which exceeded over 60 times. The link was provided already

I'm afraid that link didn't work when I tried to open it. But in any case, my original response to that point remains:

"Prior to that, it was strictly volunteer services where in some years, the applicatant and the quota exceeded 60 times"

"Which is completely irrelevant to the fact that a large number of Koreans were used as forced labour."

Compared to what Japanese in Japan had been subjected to under the same law, a "few" is even an upgrade

Stop comparing the suffering of Koreans and Japanese! Many Koreans suffered. The suffering of other groups is immaterial to that statement. And you cannot refuse to recognise the suffering of one group of people based on the fact that other groups also suffered.

Like I said, compared to what Japanesein Japan, it's a few. It's called perspective. I don't see necessity of recognition when you can basically argue that EVERYBODY 'suffered' in one way or another when your country is at war

Again, stop comparing them; that doesn't in any logical way make it okay to not recognise it. And it wasn't a few; we are talking about a large group of people. Were there other larger groups? Irrelevant. Furthermore, I refer you back to Mr Okamoto: "The fundamental sin, as I said at the outset, was the annexation of Korea, obliterating their national identities".

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I'm not doing that at all. I'm not minimising or maximising anything. I have clearly told you that it's not about elevating Koreans or saying they were the only ones who suffered; it's about recognising that they did suffer along with various other groups. See my 3rd previous post for a list (incomplete) of other groups who also suffered.

What is wrong with citizens under Japanese Empire? It COVERS everybody without leaving any groups out.

I'm not placing the POWs along with Japanese or Koreans or anyone else; I'm simply stating that each of those groups suffered. And that includes Koreans. And the reason we are having this debate is because you started out refusing to acknowledge that. But you have since admitted it:

I just don't see the point of placing them in the same sentence. Would any logical person place, let's say a Japanese soldier POW held captive in Australia, be placed alongside Australian soldiers and people as those who 'suffered'? Hell no.

So the argument is not whether they suffered, it's whether it should be recognised. I'm saying that all who suffered deserve to be recognised; you're saying that Koreans don't deserve to be recognised, for a bunch of logically unsound reasons which are really just masking your seemingly pathological inability to show empathy for the suffering of Koreans

I'm stating that it needs to be compared and evaluated. They deserve no special recognition other than the fact that their participation in term of numbers and time are quite minimal compared to the people around them (Japanese in Japan). If you want them to be recognized, I see no problem addressing this fact.

Again, stop comparing them; that doesn't in any logical way make it okay to not recognise it

'During that time, many citizens under Japanese rule SUFFERED'

I think we are in agreement with the above for it does not leave anybody out.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

What is wrong with citizens under Japanese Empire? It COVERS everybody without leaving any groups out

Their legal status as Japanese citizens at the time doesn't really have much bearing on the debate. The different ethnic groups in the Japanese Empire at that time did not magically all become ethnic Japanese because of their legal status, despite the assimilation policies towards that goal. And once again as Mr Okamoto said, the fundamental sin was annexing Korea in the first place.

I just don't see the point of placing them in the same sentence. Would any logical person place, let's say a Japanese soldier POW held captive in Australia, be placed alongside Australian soldiers and people as those who 'suffered'? Hell no

Speaking of logic, you're trying yet another fallacious argument. False equivalency. Australia hadn't invaded its neighbours, subjugated their populations and made them into Australians who then had to serve Australia. Australia also did not have a forced labour policy. It's completely obvious that in the Japanese Empire, the POWs, Chinese, Koreans, and SE Asians who were used as forced labour were different groups with different circumstances; I've said this many times here but you continue to pretend I've said otherwise. I've also said many times that the suffering of each of those groups doesn't change the suffering of any of the others, and that you can not refuse to recognise the suffering of one group of people because other people also suffered.

I'm stating that it needs to be compared and evaluated. They deserve no special recognition other than the fact that their participation in term of numbers and time are quite minimal compared to the people around them (Japanese in Japan). If you want them to be recognized, I see no problem addressing this fact

It really doesn't need to be compared. They suffered; acknowledge it. And, yet again, it isn't about special recognition. There's nothing special about it.

'During that time, many citizens under Japanese rule SUFFERED'

Not sure if this is a quote or where it's from.

I think we are in agreement with the above for it does not leave anybody out

So why is it so hard for you to directly acknowledge that that included many Koreans? This all really does seem to me just to be about your bizarre refusal to empathise with Koreans. Yes, I would agree with the above sentence. If I extend it thus:

'During that time, many citizens under Japanese rule suffered, including many from China and Korea'

would you be able to bring yourself to agree with it?
-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Their legal status as Japanese citizens at the time doesn't really have much bearing on the debate. The different ethnic groups in the Japanese Empire at that time did not magically all become ethnic Japanese because of their legal status, despite the assimilation policies towards that goal. And once again as Mr Okamoto said, the fundamental sin was annexing Korea in the first place.

Nope. Now you're shifting goal posts. We're discussing 'citizens' which encompasses every ethnic group under Japan at that time.

Speaking of logic, you're trying yet another fallacious argument. False equivalency. Australia hadn't invaded its neighbours, subjugated their populations and made them into Australians who then had to serve Australia. Australia also did not have a forced labour policy. It's completely obvious that in the Japanese Empire, the POWs, Chinese, Koreans, and SE Asians who were used as forced labour were different groups with different circumstances; I've said this many times here but you continue to pretend I've said otherwise. I've also said many times that the suffering of each of those groups doesn't change the suffering of any of the others, and that you can not refuse to recognise the suffering of one group of people because other people also suffered.

No. The biggest false equivalency is aligning POW with that of people who were under the policy of requisition. It's an apetitie for formulating a false narrative that people under the said policy was fighting against Japanese when they were actually contributing for their war efforts. As much as Koreans of today like to distance themselves from Japan of that time and skip to the other side, this is simply false.

It really doesn't need to be compared. They suffered; acknowledge it. And, yet again, it isn't about special recognition. There's nothing special about it.

It is. By specifically mentioning them in a separate sentence without any historical perspective gives notion that they are something special.

'During that time, many citizens under Japanese rule suffered, including some from Korea'

This is as accurate as you can get if you want to narrow it to a single sentence.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Nope. Now you're shifting goal posts. We're discussing 'citizens' which encompasses every ethnic group under Japan at that time

I'm not shifting any goal posts. I'm pointing out that ethnicity and citizenship are different things. You want to say that Japanese citizens suffered so that you can avoid saying Koreans suffered; but that's just a pathetic non-dodge as many of the Japanese citizens you are referring to were Korean, regardless of their legal citizenship status.

The biggest false equivalency is aligning POW with that of people who were under the policy of requisition. It's an apetitie for formulating a false narrative that people under the said policy was fighting against Japanese when they were actually contributing for their war efforts. As much as Koreans of today like to distance themselves from Japan of that time and skip to the other side, this is simply false

Completely pointless argument. The suffering of POWs is immaterial to the suffering of others, Korean or otherwise. I haven't said they are the same so stop making arguments against a position I haven't assumed.

And, yet again, it isn't about special recognition. There's nothing special about it.

It is. By specifically mentioning them in a separate sentence without any historical perspective gives notion that they are something special

The reason that I am specifically mentioning them is because I am arguing against your attempts to not acknowledge what happened to them, even after you have admitted it repeatedly. Furthermore, it is perfectly acceptable to discuss any one of those groups who suffered, in their own right and in their own seperate sentences and discussions, without it automatically meaning that one is elevating that particular group above the others.

'During that time, many citizens under Japanese rule suffered, including some from Korea'

This is as accurate as you can get if you want to narrow it to a single sentence

I love how you still can't bring yourself to just agree with the sentence as written! And in fact, what you've put there isn't even how I wrote it! I love it! You've actually changed the wording of my quote and still presented it as a quote. Haha, amazing; really, that's a very naughty trick indeed. Not the first you've tried to pull in this debate either.

The sentence once again, without your doctoring:

'During that time, many citizens under Japanese rule suffered, including many from China and Korea'

Why can you not bring yourself to directly agree with it even though you have admitted it many times over the preceeding dozens of posts?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I'm not shifting any goal posts. I'm pointing out that ethnicity and citizenship are different things. You want to say that Japanese citizens suffered so that you can avoid saying Koreans suffered; but that's just a pathetic non-dodge as many of the Japanese citizens you are referring to were Korean, regardless of their legal citizenship status.

Who says ethnicity and citizenship are different? No way in shape or form have I denied their existence for they were 'citizens under Japan at that time'.

Completely pointless argument. The suffering of POWs is immaterial to the suffering of others, Korean or otherwise. I haven't said they are the same so stop making arguments against a position I haven't assumed.

So they are different. Thanks. They should not be mentioned in the article.

The reason that I am specifically mentioning them is because I am arguing against your attempts to not acknowledge what happened to them, even after you have admitted it repeatedly. Furthermore, it is perfectly acceptable to discuss any one of those groups who suffered, in their own right and in their own seperate sentences and discussions, without it automatically meaning that one is elevating that particular group above the others.

I did acknowledge them. You may not like the idea of how I acknowledged them but that's beside the point.

I love how you still can't bring yourself to just agree with the sentence as written! And in fact, what you've put there isn't even how I wrote it! I love it! You've actually changed the wording of my quote and still presented it as a quote. Haha, amazing; really, that's a very naughty trick indeed. Not the first you've tried to pull in this debate either.

I tried to correct it to better accurately describe the situation. You may not like the fact that MOFA had reported that they were just 'few' who were subjected to the policy of requisition but that's the reality.

Why can you not bring yourself to directly agree with it even though you have admitted it many times over the preceeding dozens of posts?

Because it's inaccurate and deceptive. You can't place 'many' for citizens under Japanese rule which numbers in the millions while at the same time also place 'many' for Koreans when the MOFA bulleting indicates 'few" (ごく少数) That's blatant distortion.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Who says ethnicity and citizenship are different? No way in shape or form have I denied their existence for they were 'citizens under Japan at that time'

Ethnicity and citizenship are different by their very definition.

So they [POWs & Koreans] are different. Thanks. They should not be mentioned in the article.

Why on Earth are you saying thanks to me now for something I have been saying repeatedly and clearly all along? You haven't just won a concession from me; I never said otherwise. And I don't think the article even actually mentioned Koreans did it? It's expired now so I can't check that, but it was other posters who mentioned Koreans (and Chinese and SE Asians), suggesting they should also be apologised to, and so you started with all your fallacious arguments and your attempts to quantify suffering such that the suffering of Koreans was too 'small' to deserve an apology.

I did acknowledge them. You may not like the idea of how I acknowledged them but that's beside the point

Good.

I tried to correct it to better accurately describe the situation.

Ok, ignoring that I totally disagree with your sneakily replacing 'many' with 'some' (subjective words in any case); even if it were only 'some', however many that may be, that still constitutes a group of people. And if a group of people suffered then it should be recognised and apologised for.

You may not like the fact that MOFA had reported that they were just 'few' who were subjected to the policy of requisition but that's the reality.

That's the reality because you say the Japanese MOFA says so? That really doesn't work; why would I be any more (or less) convinced by Japanese official claims than I would be by Korean ones (or those of China, Indonesia, et al)? You know I could go to their websites and pull out all sorts of figures, and I know that you would then say it was all made up. But I am not Japanese or Korean and I have no reason to believe the official reports of 'your side' any more than 'their side'.

You can't place 'many' for citizens under Japanese rule which numbers in the millions while at the same time also place 'many' for Koreans when the MOFA bulleting indicates 'few" (ごく少数) That's blatant distortion

Could you please provide a working link for this MOFA report you keep referencing and quoting? I'm not distorting it (I've never seen it so that isn't possible), but I absolutely do not accept the claim that it was only a few.

To quote you:

'During that time, many citizens under Japanese rule suffered, including some from Korea'

If a group of people suffered, then they should be apologised to by those who caused it to happen. You asked in an earlier post, and I quote: "Why are Koreans whining?". Well, don't you think it may be because there are so many people like yourself - most problematically including Japan's PM and a large chunk of Japan's politicians - who would rather argue round and round in circles about why Koreans don't deserve an apology rather than just man up and apologise for the wrongs that they know happened? Don't you think that when you acknowledge that a group of people suffered, and if it was you that caused that suffering, it is correct to apologise to them? (of course I don't mean you personally)

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Ethnicity and citizenship are different by their very definition.

Yes. "Citizens under Japanese at that time" covers it.

Why on Earth are you saying thanks to me now for something I have been saying repeatedly and clearly all along? You haven't just won a concession from me; I never said otherwise. And I don't think the article even actually mentioned Koreans did it? It's expired now so I can't check that, but it was other posters who mentioned Koreans (and Chinese and SE Asians), suggesting they should also be apologised to, and so you started with all your fallacious arguments and your attempts to quantify suffering such that the suffering of Koreans was too 'small' to deserve an apology.

Yes. That's what I meant. They shouldn't be even discussed and rightfully so. That was my point all along.

Ok, ignoring that I totally disagree with your sneakily replacing 'many' with 'some' (subjective words in any case); even if it were only 'some', however many that may be, that still constitutes a group of people. And if a group of people suffered then it should be recognised and apologised for.

Good. You agree with 'some' then.

That's the reality because you say the Japanese MOFA says so? That really doesn't work; why would I be any more (or less) convinced by Japanese official claims than I would be by Korean ones (or those of China, Indonesia, et al)? You know I could go to their websites and pull out all sorts of figures, and I know that you would then say it was all made up. But I am not Japanese or Korean and I have no reason to believe the official reports of 'your side' any more than 'their side'.

You're right. Don't believe the MOFA studies/reports who was in charge of issuing traveling documents at that time.(and still is). I'm positive that they have absolutely no clue as to how many Koreans were subjected to the requistion order. (sigh)

Could you please provide a working link for this MOFA report you keep referencing and quoting? I'm not distorting it (I've never seen it so that isn't possible), but I absolutely do not accept the claim that it was only a few.

昭和35年2月 外務省発表集 第10号

You can look up in the national diet library.

You can see the photo picture of the said document here.

http://www35.atwiki.jp/sleepingsheepmemo/pages/20.html

If a group of people suffered, then they should be apologised to by those who caused it to happen. You asked in an earlier post, and I quote: "Why are Koreans whining?". Well, don't you think it may be because there are so many people like yourself - most problematically including Japan's PM and a large chunk of Japan's politicians - who would rather argue round and round in circles about why Koreans don't deserve an apology rather than just man up and apologise for the wrongs that they know happened? Don't you think that when you acknowledge that a group of people suffered, and if it was you that caused that suffering, it is correct to apologise to them? (of course I don't mean you personally)

No. It doesn't make sense for the current Japanese government to apologize for the policy towards Japanese citizens of former governments especially 70 years after the fact. It's meaningless.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Ethnicity and citizenship are different by their very definition

Yes. "Citizens under Japanese at that time" covers it

Not such that you can blank out any further discussion of the fact that many of those citizens were Korean.

They shouldn't be even discussed and rightfully so. That was my point all along

They should be acknowledged and apologised to. That they are not is the very reason they continue to be discussed.

Ok, ignoring that I totally disagree with your sneakily replacing 'many' with 'some' (subjective words in any case); even if it were only 'some', however many that may be, that still constitutes a group of people. And if a group of people suffered then it should be recognised and apologised for.

Good. You agree with 'some' then

Ha. I very clearly stated in the passage you've quoted right there in black and white that I totally disagree with your sneakily replacing 'many' with 'some'. And I knew that it would be necessary to clearly state that before making my point because otherwise you'd try to disingenuously claim that I agreed with 'some'. Utter fail; I do not agree, and I stated that clearly in advance. The point that you have tried to dodge is that you admit that a group of people suffered yet you still insist on obfuscating and attempting to shut down discussion of that fact.

You're right. Don't believe the MOFA studies/reports who was in charge of issuing traveling documents at that time.(and still is). I'm positive that they [MOFA] have absolutely no clue as to how many Koreans were subjected to the requistion order. (sigh)

Then how on Earth can you try to insist that it was only a few people because the MOFA report said so?

You can see the photo picture of the said document here

I can't see the passage you've quoted though; and furthermore, as I've already said, why would I be any more (or less) convinced by Japanese official claims than I would be by Korean ones (or those of China, Indonesia, et al)? You know I could go to their websites and pull out all sorts of figures, and I know that you would then say it was all made up. But I am not Japanese or Korean and I have no reason to believe the official reports of 'your side' any more than 'their side'. A solitary MOFA report is not going to be convincing to anyone.

If a group of people suffered, then they should be apologised to by those who caused it to happen. You asked in an earlier post, and I quote: "Why are Koreans whining?". Well, don't you think it may be because there are so many people like yourself - most problematically including Japan's PM and a large chunk of Japan's politicians - who would rather argue round and round in circles about why Koreans don't deserve an apology rather than just man up and apologise for the wrongs that they know happened? Don't you think that when you acknowledge that a group of people suffered, and if it was you that caused that suffering, it is correct to apologise to them? (of course I don't mean you personally)

No. It doesn't make sense for the current Japanese government to apologize for the policy towards Japanese citizens of former governments especially 70 years after the fact. It's meaningless

It does make sense though, when the citizens in question were a different ethnic group who had that citizenship forced upon them, and were made to suffer as a result. Furthermore the apology should not only be for the mobilisation policy; it should also be for the withheld payments, the terrible conditions and the many deaths. And it doesn't have to only come from the government; Mitsubishi has shown that. And it isn't meaningless at all; it would mean a great deal to those remaining alive who went through that suffering to hear an apology for it. And that is the only real point here. It isn't about Japan vs Korea (though I suppose you are incapable of seeing it any other way), it's about the suffering of human victims.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Not such that you can blank out any further discussion of the fact that many of those citizens were Korean.

I'm doing no such thing. By stating that "Citizens under Japanese at that time", this essentially encompasses everybody including the Koreans at that time.

They should be acknowledged and apologised to. That they are not is the very reason they continue to be discussed.

I don't think so.

Ha. I very clearly stated in the passage you've quoted right there in black and white that I totally disagree with your sneakily replacing 'many' with 'some'. And I knew that it would be necessary to clearly state that before making my point because otherwise you'd try to disingenuously claim that I agreed with 'some'. Utter fail; I do not agree, and I stated that clearly in advance. The point that you have tried to dodge is that you admit that a group of people suffered yet you still insist on obfuscating and attempting to shut down discussion of that fact.

I didn't 'sneakily' replace them. If I did, I would of done it so by using *italic. And I made my argument as to why your statement makes no sense since you used the word 'many' for both instances. As I stated previously, you can't place 'many' for citizens in Japan which numbers in the millions while at the same time also place 'many' for Koreans when the MOFA bulleting indicates 'few".

Then how on Earth can you try to insist that it was only a few people because the MOFA report said so?

I was being sarcastic. Notice I added (sigh).

can't see the passage you've quoted though; and furthermore, as I've already said, why would I be any more (or less) convinced by Japanese official claims than I would be by Korean ones (or those of China, Indonesia, et al)? You know I could go to their websites and pull out all sorts of figures, and I know that you would then say it was all made up. But I am not Japanese or Korean and I have no reason to believe the official reports of 'your side' any more than 'their side'. A solitary MOFA report is not going to be convincing to anyone.

It's not convicing because it does not support your narrative. The passage itself is displayed in the newspaper article here.

http://cdn35.atwikiimg.com/kolia?cmd=upload&act=open&pageid=23&file=060308.jpg

The archived MOFA material where this passage came from can be found in, 昭和35年2月 外務省発表集 第10号 which the photo is linked below.

http://cdn35.atwikiimg.com/sleepingsheepmemo?cmd=upload&act=open&pageid=20&file=817562.jpg

It does make sense though, when the citizens in question were a different ethnic group who had that citizenship forced upon them, and were made to suffer as a result. Furthermore the apology should not only be for the mobilisation policy; it should also be for the withheld payments, the terrible conditions and the many deaths. And it doesn't have to only come from the government; Mitsubishi has shown that. And it isn't meaningless at all; it would mean a great deal to those remaining alive who went through that suffering to hear an apology for it. And that is the only real point here. It isn't about Japan vs Korea (though I suppose you are incapable of seeing it any other way), it's about the suffering of human victims.

I don't think you can force a citizenship when such nation "as in Korea" no longer existed. It appears you're the one that's trying to make this about Japan vs Korea thing.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

By stating that "Citizens under Japanese at that time", this essentially encompasses everybody including the Koreans at that time

My point is that discussing what happened to a subgroup of those citizens at that time is not the same as elevating them above the others as you were trying to claim it was. Each different group within the whole may be discussed without it constituting any kind of special treatment.

That they are not is the very reason they continue to be discussed.

I don't think so

Which is the very reason you find yourself continuing to discuss them, and a similar effect is seen wherein attempts to "tell a less masochistic history" merely prolong the acrimony.

your statement makes no sense since you used the word 'many' for both instances. As I stated previously, you can't place 'many' for citizens in Japan which numbers in the millions while at the same time also place 'many' for Koreans when the MOFA bulleting indicates 'few"

The statement in question - "During that time, many citizens under Japanese rule suffered, including many from China and Korea" - makes perfect sense. It is absolutely valid to use the word 'many' in both instances. It is a much more loosely word than 'few'; a thousand can be 'many', as can 10 million. Again, the point that you have tried to dodge is that you admit that a group of people suffered yet you still insist on obfuscating and attempting to shut down discussion of that fact.

I was being sarcastic. Notice I added (sigh)

Indeed. Sarcasm is not necessary when one has a strong argument.

I am not Japanese or Korean and I have no reason to believe the official reports of 'your side' any more than 'their side'. A solitary MOFA report is not going to be convincing to anyone.

It's not convicing because it does not support your narrative

It's not convincing because it's a single newspaper report based on a single document from a biased source. I know that this is an emotional issue for you and that you will not be persuaded of anything; but I would say that the only reason you do find it convincing is because it supports your narrative; and that if that is the only thing you can come up with which does so, your narrative is not convincing at all.

The passage itself is displayed in the newspaper article here.

Thank you for the link. Reading it (as well as I am able), I can see that it does say more or less as you have translated it in various quotes above. However I question why you chose to just use the word 'few', when the article gives a specific number of 245. Now, first of all, before I comment further, I must clearly state that I do not accept this figure of 245 as proven, so don't bother trying to claim that I've accepted it in making my next point. With that said; 245 is not 'few'. It's 245 people. Even if 'only' 245 people suffered (and again I have not accepted that figure), that should still be recognised and apologised for. And as I said in my last post:

"Furthermore the apology should not only be for the mobilisation policy; it should also be for the withheld payments, the terrible conditions and the many deaths. And it doesn't have to only come from the government; Mitsubishi has shown that. And it isn't meaningless at all"

I don't think you can force a citizenship when such nation "as in Korea" no longer existed

Well you clearly can, because Japan did.

It appears you're the one that's trying to make this about Japan vs Korea thing

I'm very clearly not. Don't try to twist what I said, which was:

"it would mean a great deal to those remaining alive who went through that suffering to hear an apology for it. And that is the only real point here. It isn't about Japan vs Korea (though I suppose you are incapable of seeing it any other way), it's about the suffering of human victims."

My point about Japanese citizenship being forced upon those Koreans as a result of the annexation is that you can't use their citizenship status as an excuse for not apologising. It isn't about one country versus another. It's about people, actual human beings, actual human suffering.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

My point is that discussing what happened to a subgroup of those citizens at that time is not the same as elevating them above the others as you were trying to claim it was. Each different group within the whole may be discussed without it constituting any kind of special treatment.

Sure. I'm all for discussing such ethnic groups in which includes some sort of perspective. I believe that's what I've done.

Which is the very reason you find yourself continuing to discuss them, and a similar effect is seen wherein attempts to "tell a less masochistic history" merely prolong the acrimony.

I'm just responding. And no. I don't think an apology is necessary as those who were living and experiencing the said order that time were basically exercising their duty as citizens. To put it in today's perspective, does the Korean government of today need to apologize every year to their citizens because of their mandatory military service?

The statement in question - "During that time, many citizens under Japanese rule suffered, including many from China and Korea" - makes perfect sense. It is absolutely valid to use the word 'many' in both instances. It is a much more loosely word than 'few'; a thousand can be 'many', as can 10 million. Again, the point that you have tried to dodge is that you admit that a group of people suffered yet you still insist on obfuscating and attempting to shut down discussion of that fact.

No it does not. By using the same description for the Japanese in Japan which were subjected to this law were in the millions versus that of the Koreans which doesn't even register any statistically significance, this is blatant distortion.

Indeed. Sarcasm is not necessary when one has a strong argument.

No. I had a strong argument but it just flew by you. See my next response.

It's not convincing because it's a single newspaper report based on a single document from a biased source. I know that this is an emotional issue for you and that you will not be persuaded of anything; but I would say that the only reason you do find it convincing is because it supports your narrative; and that if that is the only thing you can come up with which does so, your narrative is not convincing at all.

I see no reason to dispute the MOFA findings who had a clear grasp of how many entered Japan under what criteria. This isn't 'emotional' at all. It's based on primary evidence. I'm sorry that it completely dismisses your false narrative.

Thank you for the link. Reading it (as well as I am able), I can see that it does say more or less as you have translated it in various quotes above. However I question why you chose to just use the word 'few', when the article gives a specific number of 245. Now, first of all, before I comment further, I must clearly state that I do not accept this figure of 245 as proven, so don't bother trying to claim that I've accepted it in making my next point. With that said; 245 is not 'few'. It's 245 people. Even if 'only' 245 people suffered (and again I have not accepted that figure), that should still be recognised and apologised for. And as I said in my last post:

It appears you're not very good at reading Japanese (which I figured out already). The exact word MOFA used in regards to Koreans who were subjected to the requisition order is "ごく少部分である" which I roughly translated to "few". The number of "245" refers to the exact number of Koreans who were subjected to this order who remained in Japan when this survey took place.

"Furthermore the apology should not only be for the mobilisation policy; it should also be for the withheld payments, the terrible conditions and the many deaths. And it doesn't have to only come from the government; Mitsubishi has shown that. And it isn't meaningless at all"

That's Mitsubishi's decision and position in regards to the POW's who worked in their company. And as I stated, they are different from Koreans which is my point all along.

Well you clearly can, because Japan did.

No. Korea, as a soverign nation cease to exist as a result of a bilateral annexation treaty. Annexation of territories which includes states, regions, and municipalities existed. There were benefits as well as duties goes along with it.

Again. No apology needed for the same thought process that a Korean government of today doesn't apologize for their mandatory military draft service. It's really that simple.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I'm all for discussing such ethnic groups in which includes some sort of perspective. I believe that's what I've done

The problem with that is that I don't think my position is lacking in perspective - other than a factual correction regarding the date of the mobilisation law, you haven't provided any information that I wasn't already aware of. Perhaps you think that if you can tell enough people that Koreans were Japanese citizens at the time, that a proportion of them supported and served the Empire willingly, that the mobilisation law didn't cover Koreans until late in the war, that lots of other people suffered too, etc etc, then you can convince people that the Koreans who suffered don't deserve an apology. You need to disabuse yourself of that notion; because, just as I already knew all of that and I still think that many Koreans suffered and they should be acknowledged and apologised to (along with all the other groups who suffered, not in elevation above them), you'll find that any other unbiased and logical person would think the same, because all of the obfuscations you've tried have been logical fallacies or just plain irrelevant to the plight of Korean forced labourers.

I don't think an apology is necessary as those who were living and experiencing the said order that time were basically exercising their duty as citizens

A citizenship that was forced upon them by a foreign power. As Mr Okamoto said, "The fundamental sin, as I said at the outset, was the annexation of Korea, obliterating their national identities"

To put it in today's perspective, does the Korean government of today need to apologize every year to their citizens because of their mandatory military service?

See above. You may feel like this is a clever point, but it's a false equivalency. Korea then had been annexed . No Koreans today question their citizenship, and they are governed by Koreans for whom they voted. The Koreans in Japan's empire were being governed by non-Koreans who they did not vote for and who took control of their country through an annexation which was forced upon them. I know that some Koreans were content with this situation and supported the Empire and benefitted from it; but others opposed it and resisted it. The situation in Korea today is nothing like that.

The statement in question - "During that time, many citizens under Japanese rule suffered, including many from China and Korea" - makes perfect sense.

No it does not.

Yes it does. It makes perfect sense both linguistically and logically. Again, the point that you have tried to dodge is that you admit that a group of people suffered yet you still insist on obfuscating and attempting to shut down discussion of that fact.

By using the same description for the Japanese in Japan which were subjected to this law were in the millions versus that of the Koreans which doesn't even register any statistically significance, this is blatant distortion.

Statistical significance? That is a way of measuring the likelihood that an outcome was or wasn't arrived at through random chance; it isn't in any way applicable here. We're not talking about statistical probabilities, we're talking about real people, real human suffering. One human life is significant; the suffering of a group of people is significant regardless of the size of that group and regardless of what happened to other groups and their relative sizes. You can not refuse to recognise the suffering if a group of people based on the size of that group or the fact that other groups also suffered.

I see no reason to dispute the MOFA findings who had a clear grasp of how many entered Japan under what criteria. This isn't 'emotional' at all. It's based on primary evidence. I'm sorry that it completely dismisses your false narrative

If they had a clear grasp of how many, why are you not able to produce a figure? And it doesn't dismiss anything given that it is clearly from a biased source and it has no bearing at all on the issues of unpaid wages and death rates; this isn't only about the mobilisation law.

It appears you're not very good at reading Japanese (which I figured out already)

Indeed. My Japanese reading has a long way to go before I'll be happy with it, and I struggled to make out the blurred kanji in the photo.

The exact word MOFA used in regards to Koreans who were subjected to the requisition order is "ごく少部分である" which I roughly translated to "few"

Is it not saying that they were a small part of the whole? I don't think 'few' is an apt translation for that; for if the whole is a large number (as it was) then a small part of that whole may still be a lot of people and not just a few. It looks like there aren't any actual figures from the MOFA though. Are there?

The number of "245" refers to the exact number of Koreans who were subjected to this order who remained in Japan when this survey took place

Thank you for clarifying that; I suspected that was what it said but wasn't confident I had it correctly. We know that some Koreans subjected to the order went home, and some died as a result of it, and some will have survived & remained in Japan yet died in the years before the survey took place. So if that left 245, what was the number actually 'imported'? The document doesn't say, but it was certainly more than a few. And if this was a survey, it isn't even based on official records, is it? Anyway, whether we are talking about hundreds or thousands or millions of people, they deserve recognition and apology.

That's Mitsubishi's decision and position in regards to the POW's who worked in their company. And as I stated, they are different from Koreans which is my point all along

Mitsubishi has said the same thing (i.e that they are different; and again I don't dispute that - it just isn't relevant to the suffering of Koreans), but only while also acknowledging that "The fundamental sin was the annexation of Korea, obliterating their national identities"

Korea, as a soverign nation cease to exist as a result of a bilateral annexation treaty. Annexation of territories which includes states, regions, and municipalities existed. There were benefits as well as duties goes along with it

Bilateral? They had no choice. "The fundamental sin, as I said at the outset, was the annexation of Korea, obliterating their national identities"

Again. No apology needed for the same thought process that a Korean government of today doesn't apologize for their mandatory military draft service. It's really that simple

Again, false equivalency. The Korean government of today has the legitimacy of having been voted for by the Korean people; they pay a fair wage; they provide them more than adequate housing, food, and medical treatment; and they don't work them to death.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The problem with that is that I don't think my position is lacking in perspective - other than a factual correction regarding the date of the mobilisation law, you haven't provided any information that I wasn't already aware of. Perhaps you think that if you can tell enough people that Koreans were Japanese citizens at the time, that a proportion of them supported and served the Empire willingly, that the mobilisation law didn't cover Koreans until late in the war, that lots of other people suffered too, etc etc, then you can convince people that the Koreans who suffered don't deserve an apology. You need to disabuse yourself of that notion; because, just as I already knew all of that and I still think that many Koreans suffered and they should be acknowledged and apologised to (along with all the other groups who suffered, not in elevation above them), you'll find that any other unbiased and logical person would think the same, because all of the obfuscations you've tried have been logical fallacies or just plain irrelevant to the plight of Korean forced labourers.

I don't think there needs to be an apology for the policy in which to serve as duty of the citizens. I have yet to see an example of one.

A citizenship that was forced upon them by a foreign power. As Mr Okamoto said, "The fundamental sin, as I said at the outset, was the annexation of Korea, obliterating their national identities"

Irrelevant. The notion that you can enjoy the benefits obtained as a result of annexation while at the same time dismissing the duties as called upon is simply selfish. Nothing more.

Statistical significance? That is a way of measuring the likelihood that an outcome was or wasn't arrived at through random chance; it isn't in any way applicable here. We're not talking about statistical probabilities, we're talking about real people, real human suffering. One human life is significant; the suffering of a group of people is significant regardless of the size of that group and regardless of what happened to other groups and their relative sizes. You can not refuse to recognise the suffering if a group of people based on the size of that group or the fact that other groups also suffered.

I'm talking about the number of people who were subjected to the requisition order. Compared to millions of the Japanese in Japan versus that of Koreans. In other words, I should of used proportionally insignificant.

If they had a clear grasp of how many, why are you not able to produce a figure? And it doesn't dismiss anything given that it is clearly from a biased source and it has no bearing at all on the issues of unpaid wages and death rates; this isn't only about the mobilisation law.

What does unclaimed benefits and death rates have to do with it?

Is it not saying that they were a small part of the whole? I don't think 'few' is an apt translation for that; for if the whole is a large number (as it was) then a small part of that whole may still be a lot of people and not just a few. It looks like there aren't any actual figures from the MOFA though. Are there?

Actually, the more definite translation would be sort of like "only a tiny fraction". No actual figures. Not really necessary, IMO.

Thank you for clarifying that; I suspected that was what it said but wasn't confident I had it correctly. We know that some Koreans subjected to the order went home, and some died as a result of it, and some will have survived & remained in Japan yet died in the years before the survey took place. So if that left 245, what was the number actually 'imported'? The document doesn't say, but it was certainly more than a few. And if this was a survey, it isn't even based on official records, is it? Anyway, whether we are talking about hundreds or thousands or millions of people, they deserve recognition and apology.

The number 245 is the survey result of the remaining Koreans in Japan.

The "only tiny fraction" is based on the entry records.

Mitsubishi has said the same thing (i.e that they are different; and again I don't dispute that - it just isn't relevant to the suffering of Koreans), but only while also acknowledging that "The fundamental sin was the annexation of Korea, obliterating their national identities"

It's his view. My view is that the benefits outweighed the con.

Bilateral? They had no choice. "The fundamental sin, as I said at the outset, was the annexation of Korea, obliterating their national identities"

It's his view. It's a binding bilateral treaty.

Again, false equivalency. The Korean government of today has the legitimacy of having been voted for by the Korean people; they pay a fair wage; they provide them more than adequate housing, food, and medical treatment; and they don't work them to death.

Not really. It's 'forced upon' policy based on fait accompli for those who enrolled had no say in it.

I repeat. Simply ignoring the benefits that came about as a result of annexation while crying wolf about the duties imposed upon as citizens at that time after several decades is simply selfish and undeserving of any sympathies. There was an interview few weeks ago where the administrator of Gunkanjima (UNESCO site) was asked to comment on the Koreans performing some ritual there. He basically said that if they cared so much, why weren't they here before? The local newspaper coverage of this ritual simply dismissed this action as "performance" and rightfully so.

You can plead all you want on behalf of them but the bottom line is you are asking the Japanese government which is elected by the Japanese people which includes some of who endured this policy at that time and most all their ancestors went through this as well. So asking them when the facts are that the Koreans at that time received 'special treatment' (7 month period with just a few who were affected), I doubt you'll get any sympathy. Even the sympathetic ones have to draw the line somewhere.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I don't think there needs to be an apology for the policy in which to serve as duty of the citizens. I have yet to see an example of one

Citizenship and duties that were forced upon them by a foreign power. As Mr Okamoto said, "The fundamental sin, as I said at the outset, was the annexation of Korea, obliterating their national identities"

The notion that you can enjoy the benefits obtained as a result of annexation while at the same time dismissing the duties as called upon is simply selfish. Nothing more

The Koreans who were deported against their wishes were being selfish, the Koreans who worked and didn't get paid, the Koreans who were worked to death were being selfish? That is some twisted and callous reasoning.

I'm talking about the number of people who were subjected to the requisition order. Compared to millions of the Japanese in Japan versus that of Koreans

I know you are. In fact, more specifically, you are talking about the number of Koreans who were subjected to the mobilisation law and taken to Japan. That is what your document is about; but how many more were made to work in Korea itself? If you include those, the number is far greater. And anyway, as I have said again and again, the number is irrelevant - we're talking about real people, real human suffering. One human life is significant; the suffering of a group of people is significant regardless of the size of that group and regardless of what happened to other groups and their relative sizes. You can not refuse to recognise the suffering if a group of people based on the size of that group or the fact that other groups also suffered.

What does unclaimed benefits and death rates have to do with it?

This forced labour issue isn't only about the mobilisation law. It is also about the work conditions; the unpaid wages and appalling death rates.

Actually, the more definite translation would be sort of like "only a tiny fraction"

As I said; and 'few' is not an apt translation for that. If we are talking about a tiny fraction of the whole, and the whole is a large number, then that tiny fraction is still a lot of people.

No actual figures. Not really necessary, IMO

Haha, ridiculous. I have said many times that it's not about the numbers, that it's not about the sizes of the relative groups. But given that what you've been arguing all along is that it is about the numbers, that the numbers are the reason there shouldn't be any apology, it's utterly laughable for you to now claim that actual figures are not really necessary. You cannot possibly continue to say that it was only a few.

The "only tiny fraction" is based on the entry records

So, how many do the entry records tell us were 'imported'? You've tried to build a whole obfuscation argument on this one document that says the imported Korean labourers in Japan were only a tiny fraction compared to the Japanese subjected to the mobilisation law in Japan - but; you have no actual figures to say how many; a tiny fraction of a large number is still a lot of people; the relative sizes of the groups is immaterial to the suffering experienced by the individuals in those groups; and Koreans weren't only forced to work in Japan anyway, so whatever the entry records say is only a part of the story. So you can't possibly claim it was only a few, and furthermore the suffering of a group of people is significant regardless of the size of that group and regardless of what happened to other groups and their relative sizes. You can not refuse to recognise the suffering if a group of people based on the size of that group or the fact that other groups also suffered

My view is that the benefits outweighed the con

You mean for Korea itself. But the apology I'm arguing should be made here is not to Korea itself; it's to those Koreans who were used as forced labour. For them, the cons completely outweighed any benefits; and as I said this isn't about Korea vs Japan, it's about the human suffering of actual individual people.

It's a binding bilateral treaty

Forced by one side upon the other.

I repeat. Simply ignoring the benefits that came about as a result of annexation while crying wolf about the duties imposed upon as citizens at that time after several decades is simply selfish and undeserving of any sympathies.

I repeat; it is twisted and callous reasoning to call the victims selfish. To the individuals who suffered or died as forced labourers for a colonial power who took control of their country through superior might it is immaterial whether that colonial power made some improvements to infrastructure etc

you are asking the Japanese government which is elected by the Japanese people which includes some of who endured this policy at that time and most all their ancestors went through this as well. So asking them when the facts are that the Koreans at that time received 'special treatment', I doubt you'll get any sympathy

I'm not asking for sympathy; I'm hoping for Japan to man up and face up squarely to what happened without all this frankly pathetic obfuscating and wriggling.

7 month period with just a few who were affected

You cannot claim it was a few. 'A small fraction' and 'just a few' are different both linguistically and mathematically, and your document has not shown that it was only a few. And in any case; the suffering of a group of people is significant regardless of the size of that group and regardless of what happened to other groups and their relative sizes. You can not refuse to recognise the suffering if a group of people based on the size of that group or the fact that other groups also suffered.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Citizenship and duties that were forced upon them by a foreign power. As Mr Okamoto said, "The fundamental sin, as I said at the outset, was the annexation of Korea, obliterating their national identities"

And completely ignoring the benefits it gained.

The Koreans who were deported against their wishes were being selfish, the Koreans who worked and didn't get paid, the Koreans who were worked to death were being selfish? That is some twisted and callous reasoning.

They were paid as records of the savings indicates. It's the unclaimed benefits.

I know you are. In fact, more specifically, you are talking about the number of Koreans who were subjected to the mobilisation law and taken to Japan. That is what your document is about; but how many more were made to work in Korea itself? If you include those, the number is far greater. And anyway, as I have said again and again, the number is irrelevant - we're talking about real people, real human suffering. One human life is significant; the suffering of a group of people is significant regardless of the size of that group and regardless of what happened to other groups and their relative sizes. You can not refuse to recognise the suffering if a group of people based on the size of that group or the fact that other groups also suffered.

Why would you include those who worked in Korea? There was no requisition order in Korean peninsula. They worked to get paid just like most people of today. Talk about moving goal posts.

This forced labour issue isn't only about the mobilisation law. It is also about the work conditions; the unpaid wages and appalling death rates.

Shifting goal posts again. The working conditions Koreans were subjected to were no different that of Japanese counterparts. And again, it's unclaimed benefits. Stop repeating the fallacy.

As I said; and 'few' is not an apt translation for that. If we are talking about a tiny fraction of the whole, and the whole is a large number, then that tiny fraction is still a lot of people.

Not really. That's your subjective interpretation.

Haha, ridiculous. I have said many times that it's not about the numbers, that it's not about the sizes of the relative groups. But given that what you've been arguing all along is that it is about the numbers, that the numbers are the reason there shouldn't be any apology, it's utterly laughable for you to now claim that actual figures are not really necessary. You cannot possibly continue to say that it was only a few.

It's 'few". Even such description is overstating. If it isn't the numbers, then your argument becomes less convincing.

So, how many do the entry records tell us were 'imported'? You've tried to build a whole obfuscation argument on this one document that says the imported Korean labourers in Japan were only a tiny fraction compared to the Japanese subjected to the mobilisation law in Japan - but; you have no actual figures to say how many; a tiny fraction of a large number is still a lot of people; the relative sizes of the groups is immaterial to the suffering experienced by the individuals in those groups; and Koreans weren't only forced to work in Japan anyway, so whatever the entry records say is only a part of the story. So you can't possibly claim it was only a few, and furthermore the suffering of a group of people is significant regardless of the size of that group and regardless of what happened to other groups and their relative sizes. You can not refuse to recognise the suffering if a group of people based on the size of that group or the fact that other groups also suffered

Why is the actual number so important? The MOFA report indicates the approximate increase of one million Koreans entering Japan during the war time period of which about 700K came as a result of their own volition and the remainder of approximately 300K came via contract work. Only a few came as a result of the mobilization law which lasted merely 7 months. It's proportionally insignificant so it's no brainer that the word 'few' will be used to describe those who are affected.

You mean for Korea itself. But the apology I'm arguing should be made here is not to Korea itself; it's to those Koreans who were used as forced labour. For them, the cons completely outweighed any benefits; and as I said this isn't about Korea vs Japan, it's about the human suffering of actual individual people.

And you know this how? Even when the mobilization law took effect, many were 'ecstatic' to go to Japan.

http://zasshi.news.yahoo.co.jp/article?a=20150807-00000017-pseven-kr

戦時中、日本企業での徴用を志願した崔基鎬(チュキホ)・加耶大学客員教授は、1000名の炭鉱員募集に7000人が殺到したことを自著『日韓併合』(祥伝社刊)で明かし、こう振り返っている。

「採用者(徴用者)たちは歓喜に溢れ(中略)就業後も休祭日は自由に札幌に繰り出し、ショッピングはもとより銭函湾での船遊びまで楽しんだ」

I can see this happening since prior to the mobilizatio law enacted for Koreans (September 1944), there were many Koreans who were trying to get to Japan illegally as indicated on various newspaper articles I linked @Jul. 21, 2015 - 03:13AM JST

Forced by one side upon the other

Irrelevant. The government at that time chose this. The largest political party, Isshin kai, welcomed it.

repeat; it is twisted and callous reasoning to call the victims selfish. To the individuals who suffered or died as forced labourers for a colonial power who took control of their country through superior might it is immaterial whether that colonial power made some improvements to infrastructure etc

It is not. You simply cannot ignore the benefits they (people in Korea and the rapid development after the annexation). The selfishness of "hey look at me" when everybody else around them (Japanese in Japan) had endured the same will get absolutely no sympathy whatsoever. This is the very people (Japanese in Japan at that time and their ancestors) you are asking to recognize and make an apology. They are not going to be sympathetic towards Korean's plight and they are absoultely justified for feeling this way.

To put it another way, if Korea was still part of Japan, Koreans would most definitely try to hide this past that they at that time, received 'special' priviledge in which their length of service of mere 7 months as opposed to six plus years that the Japanese in Japan went through.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

And completely ignoring the benefits it gained

Immaterial to the individuals who suffered; it isn't about the country, it's about those individuals. The fact that they were citizens as a result of annexation doesn't make it okay that they were abused.

They were paid as records of the savings indicates. It's the unclaimed benefits

What records? Japan paid compensation to Korea partly composed of compensation for unpaid wages.

Why would you include those who worked in Korea? There was no requisition order in Korean peninsula. They worked to get paid just like most people of today. Talk about moving goal posts

I would include any who weren't paid, who died or experienced health problems due to the conditions, or who were taken and forced to work against their will; and these things did not only happen in Japan itself.

The working conditions Koreans were subjected to were no different that of Japanese counterparts

True or not, that is irrelevant. You can not refuse to acknowledge the suffering of one group of people on the basis that another group also suffered.

It's "few"

No it isn't. That was, in your own words, your own rough translation. It's also an inaccurate translation. If you have, say, one million people, and within that group consider a subgroup of 10,000 people; that subgroup is only 1% - which may be described as a tiny fraction. However it is still 10,000, which is a lot of people and may not be described as 'a few'. You don't have any actual figures; just a single article based on a report from the Japanese MOFA which says that the number of Koreans consripted under the mobilisation law was a small fraction of the total number of workers. That isn't convincing due to the biased source; it isn't convincing due to the lack of actual figures; and in any case it doesn't even say it was 'a few'.

Why is the actual number so important?

I don't think it is; I'm just amused that after insisting all along that it's important, you have no idea what it was other than this "no brainer":

The MOFA report indicates the approximate increase of one million Koreans entering Japan during the war time period of which about 700K came as a result of their own volition and the remainder of approximately 300K came via contract work. Only a few came as a result of the mobilization law which lasted merely 7 months. It's proportionally insignificant so it's no brainer that the word 'few' will be used to describe those who are affected.

The report didn't say few, it said a tiny fraction. i.e. a tiny fraction of one million. Even if only 1%, that is 10,000 people. According to the Korean MOFA, it was 57,000 at the UNESCO sites - I have no reason to believe the Korean MOFA any more or less than the Japanese MOFA, but certainly it was not only 'a few', and the Japanese UNESCO bid knew it too:

"“Japan is prepared to take measures that allow an understanding that there were a large number of Koreans and others who were brought against their will and forced to work under harsh conditions in the 1940s at some of the sites,” the Japanese delegation to Unesco said in a statement."

Even when the mobilization law took effect, many were 'ecstatic' to go to Japan

And how do you know they were 'ecstatic'? It doesn't even say that in your article does it? Whatever random article that is

I can see this happening since prior to the mobilizatio law enacted for Koreans (September 1944), there were many Koreans who were trying to get to Japan illegally as indicated on various newspaper articles I linked

Oh, you can see it happening. Right. Well I can also see 1940s Japan forcing millions of people to work as forced labourers since Japan at that time was committing horendous human rights abuses throughout the territories it controlled. But what you or I 'can see' doesn't really count for much, does it?

Irrelevant. The government at that time chose this. The largest political party, Isshin kai, welcomed it

They didn't have a choice. And it is relevant to your attempt to justify the use of Korean forced labourers on the grounds that they were citizens. That citizenship was forced upon them by Japan's annexation of their country.

You simply cannot ignore the benefits they (people in Korea and the rapid development after the annexation)

I'm not; I'm saying that rapid development is no justification for committing human rights abuses or refusing to apologise for them.

The selfishness of "hey look at me" when everybody else around them (Japanese in Japan) had endured the same will get absolutely no sympathy whatsoever. This is the very people (Japanese in Japan at that time and their ancestors) you are asking to recognize and make an apology. They are not going to be sympathetic towards Korean's plight and they are absoultely justified for feeling this way.

Selfishness? That is almost funny, though it's too reprehensible to be funny. Here is the problem in a nutshell; you have no sympathy or empathy for Koreans and you believe that their abuse was justified and that you are justified in refusing to acknowledge it (even though you agree it happened). That's hideous, and that's why this problem runs and runs. These were real people; they suffered; stop making excuses, man up, and acknowledge it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Immaterial to the individuals who suffered; it isn't about the country, it's about those individuals. The fact that they were citizens as a result of annexation doesn't make it okay that they were abused.

Abused? No. Such words can only be used for Korean people under the prior Joseon regime.

What records? Japan paid compensation to Korea partly composed of compensation for unpaid wages.

Pay stubs and savings records from the Postal agency. The remainder are unclaimed benefits left in Japan when the employers couldn't get a hold of some Koreans who went back to Korea.

would include any who weren't paid, who died or experienced health problems due to the conditions, or who were taken and forced to work against their will; and these things did not only happen in Japan itself.

They were 'paid'. That's why there are records of payments. It was simply unclaimed.

True or not, that is irrelevant. You can not refuse to acknowledge the suffering of one group of people on the basis that another group also suffered.

Completely relevant. Everybody under Japan at that time 'suffered'.

No it isn't. That was, in your own words, your own rough translation. It's also an inaccurate translation. If you have, say, one million people, and within that group consider a subgroup of 10,000 people; that subgroup is only 1% - which may be described as a tiny fraction. However it is still 10,000, which is a lot of people and may not be described as 'a few'. You don't have any actual figures; just a single article based on a report from the Japanese MOFA which says that the number of Koreans consripted under the mobilisation law was a small fraction of the total number of workers. That isn't convincing due to the biased source; it isn't convincing due to the lack of actual figures; and in any case it doesn't even say it was 'a few'.

Thank you. Compared to a million to let's say 10,000, if one describes the former as 'many', the latter becomes 'few'.

I don't think it is; I'm just amused that after insisting all along that it's important, you have no idea what it was other than this "no brainer":

The operative word here is 'actual'. It's not important when you put into perspective.

The report didn't say few, it said a tiny fraction. i.e. a tiny fraction of one million. Even if only 1%, that is 10,000 people. According to the Korean MOFA, it was 57,000 at the UNESCO sites - I have no reason to believe the Korean MOFA any more or less than the Japanese MOFA, but certainly it was not only 'a few', and the Japanese UNESCO bid knew it too:

No. The statement made by UNESCO rep was heavily criticized for making such broad and inaccurate statement. It's people like you who use this to your narrative is the reason for such criticism.

And how do you know they were 'ecstatic'? It doesn't even say that in your article does it? Whatever random article that is

'歓喜に溢れ' Overflowed with joy, perhaps.

Oh, you can see it happening. Right. Well I can also see 1940s Japan forcing millions of people to work as forced labourers since Japan at that time was committing horendous human rights abuses throughout the territories it controlled. But what you or I 'can see' doesn't really count for much, does it?

Yes. Why would anybody on earth risk their well being and illegally migrate to a place where there are 'committing horendous human rights abuses'? Strange.

They didn't have a choice. And it is relevant to your attempt to justify the use of Korean forced labourers on the grounds that they were citizens. That citizenship was forced upon them by Japan's annexation of their country.

Of course they did. They could act towards governming themselves (becoming independent state) or simply accept the status quo. I see no evidence of independence movement during war time.

Selfishness? That is almost funny, though it's too reprehensible to be funny. Here is the problem in a nutshell; you have no sympathy or empathy for Koreans and you believe that their abuse was justified and that you are justified in refusing to acknowledge it (even though you agree it happened). That's hideous, and that's why this problem runs and runs. These were real people; they suffered; stop making excuses, man up, and acknowledge it.

As I stated, there is absolutely no need for the reason that in comparison to the Japanese in Japan counterpart, the ONLY acknowledgement that they should be recognized is the fact that their requisition order was merely 7 months compared to the 6 years. It's simple. If you want Japanese people and their government to acknowledge the Koreans, this comes to play no matter if you dislike it or not. It comes with the territory.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

nigelboy AUG. 08, 2015 - 04:14AM JST Completely relevant. Everybody under Japan at that time 'suffered'.

Your wrong. From 1930 to 1945, the economic development taking place under Japanese rule brought little benefit to the Koreans. Virtually all industries (99 percent) were owned either by Japan-based corporations or by Japanese corporations in Korea. More and more farmland was taken over by the Japanese, and an increasing proportion of Korean farmers either became sharecroppers or migrated to Japan or Manchuria as greater quantities of Korean rice were exported to Japan to feed the soldiers. Japanese rule was harsh, especially after the Japanese militarists began their expansion.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Abused? No. Such words can only be used for Korean people under the prior Joseon regime

The word abused can certainly be used for the Japanese colonial period in Korea; whether or not it applies to the preceeding period is immaterial to that fact. The point you're trying to wriggle away from is that their status as citizens of Japan at the time didn't justify Japan in committing human rights abuses against them.

Pay stubs and savings records from the Postal agency. The remainder are unclaimed benefits left in Japan when the employers couldn't get a hold of some Koreans who went back to Korea

Where are these records? Do they show that every last worker was paid in full? And if the records are so complete and accurate, why have the outstanding monies not since been paid? They have been asked for.

They were 'paid'. That's why there are records of payments. It was simply unclaimed

Where are these records? Do they show that every last worker was paid in full? And if the records are so complete and accurate, why have the outstanding monies not since been paid? They have been asked for.

Everybody under Japan at that time 'suffered'

You can not refuse to acknowledge the suffering of one group of people on the basis that another group also suffered.

Compared to a million to let's say 10,000, if one describes the former as 'many', the latter becomes 'few'

It really doesn't. 10,000 can not be described as 'few'. And it isn't described that way anyway (except in your intentionally rough translation); in your MOFA report it is described as ごく少部分である, a small fraction. That is not the same as 'few'. 10,000 is a lot of people; as is the 57,000 claimed by the Korean govt (at the UNESCO sites alone)

The operative word here is 'actual'. It's not important when you put into perspective

It's important because your argument is based on it. You don't have the actual figure, but you're claiming it's 'few' based on your intentional mistranslation of a single phrase from a single document from a single biased source. A claim which is false going by that source itself anyway - a 'small fraction' is still a lot of people when the whole is a large number.

No. The statement made by UNESCO rep was heavily criticized for making such broad and inaccurate statement.

Criticised by Japanese historical delusionalists. The UNESCO listing includes official acknowledgement that a large number of Koreans were forced to work at those sites. As much as you can't stand it, you're going to have to deal with that.

It's people like you who use this to your narrative is the reason for such criticism

People like me? Don't make this personal or start making ad hominem attacks.

Why would anybody on earth risk their well being and illegally migrate to a place where there are 'committing horendous human rights abuses'? Strange

If Koreans were Japanese citizens at the time, why was it considered emigration for them to move to Japan? And why was it illegal? Sounds like, despite being citizens, they didn't actually have the same rights as the Japanese. In any case it is very unlikely that they knew about the abuses Japan was committing in Burma, the Philippines, Malaysia, Harbin, etc etc. But today we know those abuses happened so it is easy to see that forced labour was one of them. Anyway, as I said what you or I 'can see' doesn't really count for much and I don't wish to widen the debate to those other issues.

Of course they did. They could act towards governming themselves (becoming independent state) or simply accept the status quo. I see no evidence of independence movement during war time

Delusional. There was a Korean government in exile in Shanghai. There was an independence movement, the March 1st Movement, named after 1919 demonstrations against Japanese rule which were put down by force resulting in hundreds of deaths (according to official Japanese figures) or thousands of deaths (according to Korean historians). Seodaemun Prison was where independence activists were imprisoned, tortured, and executed without trial.

As I stated, there is absolutely no need for the reason that in comparison to the Japanese in Japan counterpart, the ONLY acknowledgement that they should be recognized is the fact that their requisition order was merely 7 months compared to the 6 years. It's simple. If you want Japanese people and their government to acknowledge the Koreans, this comes to play no matter if you dislike it or not. It comes with the territory

It's much more simple than that even. If hundred or thousands or tens of thousands of Koreans suffered as forced labourers, they should be recognised. You can not refuse to recognise the suffering of a group of people based on the fact that another group also suffered or on the relative sizes of those groups. These were real people; they suffered; stop making excuses, man up, and acknowledge it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yoshitsune AUG. 08, 2015 - 01:58PM JST It's much more simple than that even. If hundred or thousands or tens of thousands of Koreans suffered as forced labourers, they should be recognised. You can not refuse to recognise the suffering of a group of people based on the fact that another group also suffered or on the relative sizes of those groups. These were real people; they suffered; stop making excuses, man up, and acknowledge it.

If that is true, why did Korean government hid and deny until 2005 (40 years later) to release a file to their own citizens of the $800 millions that Japan paid to Korea in 1965 treaty? South Korea is being duplicitous, to put it mildly. Japan paid. It did so and enjoyed nary a complaint in the immediate years after the South Korean government negotiated in 1965, presumably in good faith, a settlement of the reparations issue. But South Korean politicians with selective memory over the past two decades have taken this long-settled matter and spun it into guaranteed votes at the South Korean poll by glossing completely over the fact that the South Korean government not only received large sums of money in the form of over $800 million in grants and soft loans, over $6 billion in today's dollars but also declined specifically to allow Japan to dispense this money to individual victims of Japan's aggression, stating that it would prefer the money in a lump sum to dispense as it saw fit. Needless to say, none of that $800 million made it into the hands of the slave laborers or "comfort women." Where did that money go? Why aren't South Koreans angrier with their own government for not being able to answer this question?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Hi sfjp

Thank you for your input, but it's slightly off-mark; I'm not actually of the opinion that Japan should compensate Korea any more than it has done, and I haven't called for that at all i.e. I agree that compensation was settled 50 years ago. And I agree that the Korean government is at fault for failing to distribute that compensation to the victims; and it would be a good and helpful thing if more Koreans were aware of this (some are, some aren't)

My point throughout this debate hasn't been that Japan needs to pay more compensation; rather, that elements in Japan should stop trying to deny and obfuscate over what happened. Korean forced labourers deserve recognition and apology just as Chinese and SE Asian forced labourers do; that is my position.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yoshitsune, Japan never tries to deny or obfuscate over what happened. Japan is only interested in truth. USA recently released the result of intensive reseach on comfort women and they said they found no evidence of sex slaves.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

tina, we're not debating comfort women here

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The word abused can certainly be used for the Japanese colonial period in Korea; whether or not it applies to the preceeding period is immaterial to that fact. The point you're trying to wriggle away from is that their status as citizens of Japan at the time didn't justify Japan in committing human rights abuses against them.

Not really.

"...It is true that at the time Japan annexed Korea in 1910, the actual conditions of life in the Peninsula were extremely bad. This was not due to any lack of inherent intelligence and ability in the Korean race, but to the stupidity and corruption which had characterized the government of the Korean dynasty, and to the existence of a royal court which maintained a system of licensed cruelty and corruption throughout Korea. Such was the misrule under which the Koreans had suffered for generation after generation that all incentive to industry and social progress had been destroyed because none of the common people had been allowed to enjoy the fruits of their own efforts..."

As with most of your statements, it completely lacks any historical context.

Where are these records? Do they show that every last worker was paid in full? And if the records are so complete and accurate, why have the outstanding monies not since been paid? They have been asked for.

Pursuant to the order initiated by the Japanese government in 1946, the companies were required to submit the details of name of employee and the unclaimed sum to the local government. The said money was then deposited to Tokyo Legal affairs bureau. Of course, this money along with many other claims were settled via 1965 agreement where the responsibility of such claims among Koreans were now in the hands of the Korean government.

This is common knowledge to those who are familiar with the issue and yet many Koreans and those who argue for them are completely clueless.

You can not refuse to acknowledge the suffering of one group of people on the basis that another group also suffered.

When the people that 'suffered' the most aren't asking for acknowledgement, you question the motives behind those who seek recognition who suffered the least.

It really doesn't. 10,000 can not be described as 'few'. And it isn't described that way anyway (except in your intentionally rough translation); in your MOFA report it is described as ごく少部分である, a small fraction. That is not the same as 'few'. 10,000 is a lot of people; as is the 57,000 claimed by the Korean govt (at the UNESCO sites alone)

So what is the Korean government claiming exactly? 57,000 Koreans were mobilized during the 7 months period at those sites?

It's important because your argument is based on it. You don't have the actual figure, but you're claiming it's 'few' based on your intentional mistranslation of a single phrase from a single document from a single biased source. A claim which is false going by that source itself anyway - a 'small fraction' is still a lot of people when the whole is a large number.

A 'small fraction', is 'few'. Unless of course, you can specifically define the maximum number of 'few' is. This is getting ridiculous.

Criticised by Japanese historical delusionalists. The UNESCO listing includes official acknowledgement that a large number of Koreans were forced to work at those sites. As much as you can't stand it, you're going to have to deal with that.

And there you go, milking the statement of UNESCO much in the same manner as Kono statement.

If Koreans were Japanese citizens at the time, why was it considered emigration for them to move to Japan? And why was it illegal? Sounds like, despite being citizens, they didn't actually have the same rights as the Japanese. In any case it is very unlikely that they knew about the abuses Japan was committing in Burma, the Philippines, Malaysia, Harbin, etc etc. But today we know those abuses happened so it is easy to see that forced labour was one of them. Anyway, as I said what you or I 'can see' doesn't really count for much and I don't wish to widen the debate to those other issues.

Unemployment was one of the major issue. Unless writing letters and sending telegrams was illegal, your 'unlikely that they knew about' is totally wishful thinking.

Delusional. There was a Korean government in exile in Shanghai. There was an independence movement, the March 1st Movement, named after 1919 demonstrations against Japanese rule which were put down by force resulting in hundreds of deaths (according to official Japanese figures) or thousands of deaths (according to Korean historians). Seodaemun Prison was where independence activists were imprisoned, tortured, and executed without trial.

And now we're back to the early days of the annexation. The 'exile' Korean government were selling 'adult' mags to fund their measely existence (virtually no support from people from Korea) and it's no wonder that Axis and subsequently the Allies refused their status. Kempeitai (military police) was abolished in Korea in the 20's signaling order within the Korean peninsula.

"...Discussing Korean affairs with a good many people (Korean, Japanese and foreign) I found almost unanimous agreement on two points: one, that native sentiment had shown a continuing tendency to become less anti-Japanese in recent years; the other, that the remarkable increase in the country's prosperity had been accompanied by a striking improvement in the living conditions of the Korean people at large..."

It's much more simple than that even. If hundred or thousands or tens of thousands of Koreans suffered as forced labourers, they should be recognised. You can not refuse to recognise the suffering of a group of people based on the fact that another group also suffered or on the relative sizes of those groups. These were real people; they suffered; stop making excuses, man up, and acknowledge it.

That's a big "if". Again, if you are asking the Japanese go "man up", you better come up with a better argument.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

As with most of your statements, it completely lacks any historical context

As with all your other arguments, it completely lacks relevance. Whether or not Korea was poorly governed in the Joseon period is irrelevant to what the Japanese did in Korea. The point you're trying to wriggle away from is that the status of Koreans as citizens of Japan at the time didn't justify Japan in committing human rights abuses against them.

Pursuant to the order initiated by the Japanese government in 1946, the companies were required to submit the details of name of employee and the unclaimed sum to the local government. The said money was then deposited to Tokyo Legal affairs bureau. Of course, this money along with many other claims were settled via 1965 agreement where the responsibility of such claims among Koreans were now in the hands of the Korean government. This is common knowledge to those who are familiar with the issue and yet many Koreans and those who argue for them are completely clueless

i.e. they were paid compensation two decades later because they hadn't been paid at the time.

When the people that 'suffered' the most aren't asking for acknowledgement, you question the motives behind those who seek recognition who suffered the least

It isn't about who suffered the most. It's about recognising people who suffered. You're trying to quantify suffering according to the sizes of the groups, and to say that the Japanese suffered the most because more of them were conscripted. But you can not quantify suffering; and it's about the nature of what happened to those groups not just how large they were; and the conditions experienced by Koreans and Japanese were not the same once conscripted; and anyway you can not refuse to recognise the suffering of one group because other groups also suffered or on the basis of the relative sizes of the groups.

The motive is clear; hoping for a direct apology for a specific past wrong, just as the POWs in the article hoped for and thankfully finally received from Mitsubishi

So what is the Korean government claiming exactly? 57,000 Koreans were mobilized during the 7 months period at those sites?

As I said I have no reason to believe that claim any more or less than the Japanese MOFA's claims, unless either has concrete evidence.

A 'small fraction', is 'few'. Unless of course, you can specifically define the maximum number of 'few' is. This is getting ridiculous.

It was ridiculous the moment you translated a 'small fraction' as a 'few'. They are not the same thing. A small fraction is still a lot of people when the whole is a large number.

And there you go, milking the statement of UNESCO much in the same manner as Kono statement.

I'm not milking it and I haven't mentioned the Kono statement once. I'm pointing out to you that there is official recognition that flies in the face of what you're claiming. The UNESCO listing includes official acknowledgement that a large number of Koreans were forced to work at those sites. As much as you can't stand it, you're going to have to deal with that. If it wasn't true they wouldn't have put it on official record.

Unemployment was one of the major issue

Sorry, what does that have to do with my question? "If Koreans were Japanese citizens at the time, why was it considered emigration for them to move to Japan? And why was it illegal? Sounds like, despite being citizens, they didn't actually have the same rights as the Japanese"

Unless writing letters and sending telegrams was illegal, your 'unlikely that they knew about' is totally wishful thinking

It is very unlikely that most people in Korea (or Japan or anywhere else) knew much about the atrocities of e.g. the Death Railway, the death marches, or Unit 731 until after the war had finished (except of course for those Koreans who were actually taking part in the atrocities!)

And now we're back to the early days of the annexation. The 'exile' Korean government were selling 'adult' mags to fund their measely existence (virtually no support from people from Korea) and it's no wonder that Axis and subsequently the Allies refused their status. Kempeitai (military police) was abolished in Korea in the 20's signaling order within the Korean peninsula.

None of which has any bearing on the fact that there was in fact a Korean resistance movement against the Japanese and a special prison for dealing with its members.

"...Discussing Korean affairs with a good many people..."

What are you quoting there? Your 1926 book again? That is immaterial to the abuses that came later.

If hundred or thousands or tens of thousands of Koreans suffered as forced labourers, they should be recognised

That's a big "if"

I didn't mean 'if the abuses happened'. I meant regardless of whether they happened to hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands. But I think you understood that. You can not refuse to recognise the suffering of a group of people based on the fact that another group also suffered or on the relative sizes of those groups. These were real people; they suffered; stop making excuses, man up, and acknowledge it.

Again, if you are asking the Japanese go "man up", you better come up with a better argument.

I'm not; I'm asking you to do so. You know Koreans suffered, you just won't directly acknowledge it (even though you do admit it) because, as far as I can make out you just simply don't like them.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

As with all your other arguments, it completely lacks relevance. Whether or not Korea was poorly governed in the Joseon period is irrelevant to what the Japanese did in Korea. The point you're trying to wriggle away from is that the status of Koreans as citizens of Japan at the time didn't justify Japan in committing human rights abuses against them.

Because it is relevant. The stupidity, corruption, cruelty, and the misrule resulted in Japan's annexation. What happened afterwards was a godsend and hardly a 'human rights abuses' in comparison. A little historical perspective would be nice for a change.

.e. they were paid compensation two decades later because they hadn't been paid at the time.

They weren't 'claimed'. There's a difference. The reason why they weren't claimed is because among those Koreans who moved back to Korea, some did not give their forwarding addresses. The money as well as the record was kept. This was subsequently recorded within the various branches of the local government. The money was deposited to the central authority. Your accusation that there was some type of ill will among these companies is simply false.

It isn't about who suffered the most. It's about recognising people who suffered. You're trying to quantify suffering according to the sizes of the groups, and to say that the Japanese suffered the most because more of them were conscripted. But you can not quantify suffering; and it's about the nature of what happened to those groups not just how large they were; and the conditions experienced by Koreans and Japanese were not the same once conscripted; and anyway you can not refuse to recognise the suffering of one group because other groups also suffered or on the basis of the relative sizes of the groups.

Like I stated before, if you seek recognition, then you also have to recognize the fact that their mobilization term (a mere 7 months compared to 6 years for Japan) and the number that was affected by such policy. I don't see how you have a problem with recognizing this fact.

The motive is clear; hoping for a direct apology for a specific past wrong, just as the POWs in the article hoped for and thankfully finally received from Mitsubishi

They should never be aligned with the POW as mentioned on my several comments already.

It was ridiculous the moment you translated a 'small fraction' as a 'few'. They are not the same thing. A small fraction is still a lot of people when the whole is a large number.

Of course they are unless you can come with a maximum number of 'few'. I've looked at many dictionary and have yet to come up with a specific number. Perhaps you could finally enlighten me instead of dodging this.

I'm not milking it and I haven't mentioned the Kono statement once. I'm pointing out to you that there is official recognition that flies in the face of what you're claiming. The UNESCO listing includes official acknowledgement that a large number of Koreans were forced to work at those sites. As much as you can't stand it, you're going to have to deal with that. If it wasn't true they wouldn't have put it on official record.

That's exactly the argument used with the Kono statement. The statement was issued in haste as a result of Korean delegates doing a complete 180 by not accepting the sites unless such term was used. It was an extortion. You are milking it.

Sorry, what does that have to do with my question? "If Koreans were Japanese citizens at the time, why was it considered emigration for them to move to Japan? And why was it illegal? Sounds like, despite being citizens, they didn't actually have the same rights as the Japanese"

It's only natural that despite just a couple decades after the annexation, there was a quite a disparity in wage scale. I see nothing wrong with limiting the immigration until such disparity is narrowed.

It is very unlikely that most people in Korea (or Japan or anywhere else) knew much about the atrocities of e.g. the Death Railway, the death marches, or Unit 731 until after the war had finished (except of course for those Koreans who were actually taking part in the atrocities!)

So this is about POW? What is the policy towards POW outside Japan have to do with the mobilization law?

None of which has any bearing on the fact that there was in fact a Korean resistance movement against the Japanese and a special prison for dealing with its members.

Of which, virtually no one took them seriously. Small number resisted and conducted terrorist attacks.

What are you quoting there? Your 1926 book again? That is immaterial to the abuses that came later.

What abuses? The 7 month mobilization period?

I didn't mean 'if the abuses happened'. I meant regardless of whether they happened to hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands. But I think you understood that. You can not refuse to recognise the suffering of a group of people based on the fact that another group also suffered or on the relative sizes of those groups. These were real people; they suffered; stop making excuses, man up, and acknowledge it.

I did. You just don't like the fact that I included the short mobilization period and the 'small fraction' of numbers who were affected. Why are these truth inconvenient for you? Do you not agree that such facts should also be recognized and let the people who read them make a determination?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Because it is relevant. The stupidity, corruption, cruelty, and the misrule resulted in Japan's annexation. What happened afterwards was a godsend and hardly a 'human rights abuses' in comparison. A little historical perspective would be nice for a change

What a load of rubbish. Poor governance does not result in annexation by a neighbouring country. Perhaps it makes it easy for a neighbouring country to annex you - but that neighbouring country must still have the intent to make it happen, as Japan did when it sent troops to the peninsula and envoys with documents drawn up to be signed. The poor governance (or not) of the Joseon government does not justify Japan's annexation.

They weren't 'claimed'. There's a difference. The reason why they weren't claimed is because among those Koreans who moved back to Korea, some did not give their forwarding addresses. The money as well as the record was kept. This was subsequently recorded within the various branches of the local government. The money was deposited to the central authority. Your accusation that there was some type of ill will among these companies is simply false.

But the unclaimed monies includes unpaid wages as well as unpaid pensions. Why did these people have salaries in arrears to 'claim' in the first place? Because the companies hadn't paid them. This document is interesting, giving a detailed account of how those funds ended up where they did instead of with the rightful recipients (including the complicity of the US occupation administration):

http://contents.nahf.or.kr/english/item/downloadItemFile.process?fileName=jn_013_0010.pdf&levelId=jn_013e_0010

Like I stated before, if you seek recognition, then you also have to recognize the fact that their mobilization term (a mere 7 months compared to 6 years for Japan) and the number that was affected by such policy. I don't see how you have a problem with recognizing this fact.

And you have to recognise the fact that regardles of the length of the term or the number affected, those affected are deserving of recognition and apology.

They should never be aligned with the POW as mentioned on my several comments already.

I'm not 'aligning' them; I'm saying they share a common motive in seeking recognition and apology.

Of course they are unless you can come with a maximum number of 'few'. I've looked at many dictionary and have yet to come up with a specific number. Perhaps you could finally enlighten me instead of dodging this.

The fact is that 'a small fraction' and 'a few' are not the same thing. If you had said 'comparatively few' then we wouldn't be engaging in this semantic quibbling, but you didn't say that.

That's exactly the argument used with the Kono statement. The statement was issued in haste as a result of Korean delegates doing a complete 180 by not accepting the sites unless such term was used. It was an extortion. You are milking it.

I'm not milking it, I'm pointing out to you that there is official recognition that flies in the face of what you're claiming. The UNESCO listing includes official acknowledgement that a large number of Koreans were forced to work at those sites. They would not have agreed to include that acknowledgement in the UNESCO listing if they thought it was false. As much as you can't stand it, you're going to have to deal with that; if it wasn't true they wouldn't have put it on official record (I still don't know why you're talking about the Kono statement, which has nothing to do with the matter at hand)

It's only natural that despite just a couple decades after the annexation, there was a quite a disparity in wage scale. I see nothing wrong with limiting the immigration until such disparity is narrowed.

Again, what does that have to do with my question? "If Koreans were Japanese citizens at the time, why was it considered emigration for them to move to Japan? And why was it illegal?" Perhaps you were trying to address the second part of that - but if they were truly citizens of equal status, they should have been free to move anywhere in Japan. Seems they were second class citizens in ther own land.

It is very unlikely that most people in Korea (or Japan or anywhere else) knew much about the atrocities of e.g. the Death Railway, the death marches, or Unit 731 until after the war had finished (except of course for those Koreans who were actually taking part in the atrocities!)

So this is about POW? What is the policy towards POW outside Japan have to do with the mobilization law?

No, it isn't about POWs. This little sidetrack started with you saying that you could 'easily see that Koreans would have been ecstatic to be conscripted for labour in Japan because many had been moving there illegally', to which I said that I 'could easily see that Japan would have abused those labourers given the much worse things Japan was doing elsewhere'. The point I was making is that what you or I 'can easily see' doesn't mean an awful lot.

Of which, virtually no one took them seriously. Small number resisted and conducted terrorist attacks.

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". The reason we're even talking about it is that you said there was no evidence of an independence movement. You have now acknowledged that there was, and I'm not interested in a tangent about how big it was, whether they were terrorists or freedom fighters, or whether anyone took them seriously.

What abuses? The 7 month mobilization period?

Non-payment of wages, high casualty rates, and poor work conditions, both before and during your 'mobilisation period', and the deportation to Japan to be subjected to those things during your 'mobilisation period'.

I didn't mean 'if the abuses happened'. I meant regardless of whether they happened to hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands. But I think you understood that. You can not refuse to recognise the suffering of a group of people based on the fact that another group also suffered or on the relative sizes of those groups. These were real people; they suffered; stop making excuses, man up, and acknowledge it

I did [acknowledge it]

Good. So stop with the excuses and obfuscations!

You just don't like the fact that I included the short mobilization period and the 'small fraction' of numbers who were affected. Why are these truth inconvenient for you? Do you not agree that such facts should also be recognized and let the people who read them make a determination?

What I don't like is the way that you're trying to use those points to argue that the victims do not deserve an apology even though they did experience suffering. They're not 'inconvenient truths', they're simply irrelevant to whether those who suffered deserve an apology or not.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

What a load of rubbish. Poor governance does not result in annexation by a neighbouring country. Perhaps it makes it easy for a neighbouring country to annex you - but that neighbouring country must still have the intent to make it happen, as Japan did when it sent troops to the peninsula and envoys with documents drawn up to be signed. The poor governance (or not) of the Joseon government does not justify Japan's annexation.

It does. There was no force. It was "Before we pitched the net, a fish jumped into the net". There was no 'justification' necessary for the concept of annexation is not wrong. It's a binding bilateral treaty and not a proclamation where force was used on the conquering side.

But the unclaimed monies includes unpaid wages as well as unpaid pensions. Why did these people have salaries in arrears to 'claim' in the first place? Because the companies hadn't paid them. This document is interesting, giving a detailed account of how those funds ended up where they did instead of with the rightful recipients (including the complicity of the US occupation administration):

I can't access the file. Perhaps you could re-paste the link.

And you have to recognise the fact that regardles of the length of the term or the number affected, those affected are deserving of recognition and apology.

Why? Japanese in Japan aren't asking for it.

I'm not 'aligning' them; I'm saying they share a common motive in seeking recognition and apology.

See above.

The fact is that 'a small fraction' and 'a few' are not the same thing. If you had said 'comparatively few' then we wouldn't be engaging in this semantic quibbling, but you didn't say that.

Sure. 'comparatively few' then.

I'm not milking it, I'm pointing out to you that there is official recognition that flies in the face of what you're claiming. The UNESCO listing includes official acknowledgement that a large number of Koreans were forced to work at those sites. They would not have agreed to include that acknowledgement in the UNESCO listing if they thought it was false. As much as you can't stand it, you're going to have to deal with that; if it wasn't true they wouldn't have put it on official record (I still don't know why you're talking about the Kono statement, which has nothing to do with the matter at hand)

It's false statement. That's why there was criticism. And you are milking this false statement by repeating "deal with it". It's the same situation that transpired in the Kono Statement. It's no wonder the media labeled them as the second Kono Statement. If you hadn't noticed, that's why I'm referring to the similarities in Kono Statement.

Again, what does that have to do with my question? "If Koreans were Japanese citizens at the time, why was it considered emigration for them to move to Japan? And why was it illegal?" Perhaps you were trying to address the second part of that - but if they were truly citizens of equal status, they should have been free to move anywhere in Japan. Seems they were second class citizens in ther own land.

I answered them. I just don't see why the central government would even cater to such free mass immigration when there was still such big disparity in wages. If such disparity had shrunken and the assimilation process has progressed, I can see the central government issuing the mobilization as well as military draft at the same time as the Japanese in Japan. To put it simply, Koreans in Korean peninsula at that time, weren't at that stage yet. Don't know why you try to make this an equal opportunity issue.

No, it isn't about POWs. This little sidetrack started with you saying that you could 'easily see that Koreans would have been ecstatic to be conscripted for labour in Japan because many had been moving there illegally', to which I said that I 'could easily see that Japan would have abused those labourers given the much worse things Japan was doing elsewhere'. The point I was making is that what you or I 'can easily see' doesn't mean an awful lot

Puzzling comment. Koreans in Korea and Koreans in Japan communicated via mail and telegrams. Money were sent from Japan to Korea. Some Koreans immigrated back to Korea to enjoy their hard earned income. People try to immigrate to a territory illegally because they have a knowledge that they can earn a better living there. How do you think they get that kind of info?

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". The reason we're even talking about it is that you said there was no evidence of an independence movement. You have now acknowledged that there was, and I'm not interested in a tangent about how big it was, whether they were terrorists or freedom fighters, or whether anyone took them seriously

And I thought we were talking about 'freedom fighter' during the time in question which was the thirties and fourties So where is the independence movement during those time especially in Korea? If it was bad as you describe, perhaps you could enlighten me on this movement during the time in question.

Non-payment of wages, high casualty rates, and poor work conditions, both before and during your 'mobilisation period', and the deportation to Japan to be subjected to those things during your 'mobilisation period'.

Yep. Starvation, aerial bombings, and general lack of resources. Times were very tough for many Japanese at that time. It's well documented. What else do you need that most people already know?

What I don't like is the way that you're trying to use those points to argue that the victims do not deserve an apology even though they did experience suffering. They're not 'inconvenient truths', they're simply irrelevant to whether those who suffered deserve an apology or not.

Like I said, the reason why an apology is not necessary is because the Japanese themselves are not asking for it. Just because Korea is a separate state doesn't warrant any apology. If Korea was still part of Japan, these Koreans would be trying to hide the fact that they received special treatment (only 7 months and no military draft) during war time.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The poor governance (or not) of the Joseon government does not justify Japan's annexation

It does. There was no force. It was "Before we pitched the net, a fish jumped into the net". There was no 'justification' necessary for the concept of annexation is not wrong. It's a binding bilateral treaty and not a proclamation where force was used on the conquering side

Korea was forced to sign the 1905 treaty, which led in turn to the formal annexation. And regardless of whether or not there was force; poor governance does not lead to annexation! It is the intent of one country to annex another that leads to annexation - if the country on the recieving end isn't strong enought to resist. Might is not right.

I can't access the file. Perhaps you could re-paste the link

Sorry about that. It isn't crucial, just an interesting read.

And you have to recognise the fact that regardles of the length of the term or the number affected, those affected are deserving of recognition and apology

Why? Japanese in Japan aren't asking for it

That's irrelevant. The victims shouldn't even have to ask; the recognition and apology should be given freely.

The fact is that 'a small fraction' and 'a few' are not the same thing. If you had said 'comparatively few' then we wouldn't be engaging in this semantic quibbling, but you didn't say that

Sure. 'comparatively few' then

Ok. And 'comparatively few' or 'a small fraction' is still a lot of people when the whole is a large number of people. And it isn't about how many anyway; those who suffered deserve recognition and apology regardless of the relative sizes of whatever group they were a part of.

It's false statement. That's why there was criticism. And you are milking this false statement by repeating "deal with it". It's the same situation that transpired in the Kono Statement. It's no wonder the media labeled them as the second Kono Statement. If you hadn't noticed, that's why I'm referring to the similarities in Kono Statement

It's only false in the eyes of deluded revisionists. They would not have included the statement in the UNESCO listing if it were false. I'm not milking it; you're just refusing to accept what even the Japanese government officially acknowledges. The Kono statement is irrelevant to this matter.

I answered them. I just don't see why the central government would even cater to such free mass immigration when there was still such big disparity in wages. If such disparity had shrunken and the assimilation process has progressed, I can see the central government issuing the mobilization as well as military draft at the same time as the Japanese in Japan. To put it simply, Koreans in Korean peninsula at that time, weren't at that stage yet. Don't know why you try to make this an equal opportunity issue

You didn't, you dodged the point; if Korea was Japan at the time, and Koreans were Japanese at the time, why do you use the word 'immigration' in reference to Koreans moving to Japan? If it was one country and they were all citizens, then it would have been internal domestic movements and not immigration. That it was considered immigration shows that the Koreans were not equals; they were second-class citizens.

Puzzling comment. Koreans in Korea and Koreans in Japan communicated via mail and telegrams. Money were sent from Japan to Korea. Some Koreans immigrated back to Korea to enjoy their hard earned income. People try to immigrate to a territory illegally because they have a knowledge that they can earn a better living there. How do you think they get that kind of info?

This has nothing to do with what I said. Puzzling indeed.

And I thought we were talking about 'freedom fighter' during the time in question which was the thirties and fourties

We were not in fact discussing that period until you abruptly changed it (and I missed it that you'd done so). A recap of that thread of the discussion:

I don't think you can force a citizenship when such nation "as in Korea" no longer existed

Well you clearly can, because Japan did

No. Korea, as a soverign nation cease to exist as a result of a bilateral annexation treaty. Annexation of territories which includes states, regions, and municipalities existed. There were benefits as well as duties goes along with it.

Bilateral? They had no choice. "The fundamental sin, as I said at the outset, was the annexation of Korea, obliterating their national identities"

It's his view. It's a binding bilateral treaty

Forced by one side upon the other

Irrelevant. The government at that time chose this. The largest political party, Isshin kai, welcomed it

They didn't have a choice. And it is relevant to your attempt to justify the use of Korean forced labourers on the grounds that they were citizens. That citizenship was forced upon them by Japan's annexation of their country

Of course they did. They could act towards governming themselves (becoming independent state) or simply accept the status quo. I see no evidence of independence movement during war time

I should've stopped you right there and not chased your independence-movement stick. We were discussing the annexation; you abruptly shifted it to specifically war time, which I missed and went on to discuss the independence movement in the 1910s & 1920s. So no, we weren't discussing the independence movement in the 30s & 40s.

So where is the independence movement during those time especially in Korea? If it was bad as you describe, perhaps you could enlighten me on this movement during the time in question

Whether or not the Korean independence movement was active during the war has no bearing on whether Japan's annexation of Korea was forced or justified. And if the independence movement wasn't so active later on, that is evidence of Japan having suppressed it rather than evidence of 'fish jumping into nets' three decades earlier.

Non-payment of wages, high casualty rates, and poor work conditions, both before and during your 'mobilisation period', and the deportation to Japan to be subjected to those things during your 'mobilisation period'

Yep. Starvation, aerial bombings, and general lack of resources. Times were very tough for many Japanese at that time. It's well documented. What else do you need that most people already know?

You asked what abuses Koreans had suffered; your response to my answer, whilst not untrue, is totally irrelevant to what was being discussed.

Like I said, the reason why an apology is not necessary is because the Japanese themselves are not asking for it. Just because Korea is a separate state doesn't warrant any apology. If Korea was still part of Japan, these Koreans would be trying to hide the fact that they received special treatment (only 7 months and no military draft) during war time

Like I said, that other groups suffered is irrelevant, the comparative sizes of those groups is irrelevant, and whether or not one group has asked for apology is irrelevant to the fact that all those who suffered deserve recognition and apology. People who have been made to suffer should not even have to ask for an apology; it should be freely given. You are again putting this down to nation against nation; but it isn't, it's about the actual human suffering of real people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Korea was forced to sign the 1905 treaty, which led in turn to the formal annexation. And regardless of whether or not there was force; poor governance does not lead to annexation! It is the intent of one country to annex another that leads to annexation - if the country on the recieving end isn't strong enought to resist. Might is not right.

Poor governance and or simply a failure to govern themselves does lead to annexation. We see this example in various municipalities today all around the world where the certain rural governments cannot sustain herself to provide for their residents so they decide to attach themselves to another. The much larger scale happened to Korea at that time. Though they wanted to modernize, they simply didn't have the strength whether it be financial, public works, expertise, and the public will to make this happen. Their government at that point, simply came to a conclusion that they had no ability.

That's irrelevant. The victims shouldn't even have to ask; the recognition and apology should be given freely

Again, I don't see why they need that type of recognition simply because they were under Japanese empire at that time. Pretty much everybody suffered under the said years so what makes Korea so special that they deserve such recognition?

Ok. And 'comparatively few' or 'a small fraction' is still a lot of people when the whole is a large number of people. And it isn't about how many anyway; those who suffered deserve recognition and apology regardless of the relative sizes of whatever group they were a part of.

I don't think so. If one political party receives a million votes while one party recives a single digit thousands, in that context, I would not consider the latter as 'large number of people'. Perhaps you and I differ in how we perceive the use of such description.

It's only false in the eyes of deluded revisionists. They would not have included the statement in the UNESCO listing if it were false. I'm not milking it; you're just refusing to accept what even the Japanese government officially acknowledges. The Kono statement is irrelevant to this matter.

You are milking it. It's a statement issue in haste as a result of Korean delegates lobbying for such insertion to be implemented or else they would vote against it. It was a complete 180 when their FM just a few weeks ago assured Japan that they would cooperate with the UNESCO enlistment.

You didn't, you dodged the point; if Korea was Japan at the time, and Koreans were Japanese at the time, why do you use the word 'immigration' in reference to Koreans moving to Japan? If it was one country and they were all citizens, then it would have been internal domestic movements and not immigration. That it was considered immigration shows that the Koreans were not equals; they were second-class citizens.

I don't think I did. The tax rate within the Korean peninsula was lower compare to Japan. There was no military draft unlike the Japanese in Japan. And of course, the implementation of the mobilization order was only 7 months. They were not equals in that regards as well. While the idea of such free movement is ideal, it's not realistic at that point considering the wage difference.

I should've stopped you right there and not chased your independence-movement stick. We were discussing the annexation; you abruptly shifted it to specifically war time, which I missed and went on to discuss the independence movement in the 1910s & 1920s. So no, we weren't discussing the independence movement in the 30s & 40s.

Good. The point I wanted to make was that Koreans at that time (30's and 40's) were mostly in favor of the war effort.

You asked what abuses Koreans had suffered; your response to my answer, whilst not untrue, is totally irrelevant to what was being discussed.

And I don't see why you need to specifically mention them. ' People under Japan at that time' would be suffice for it does not leave anybody out. On the other hand, if you want to single out Koreans, I don't see why you can't mention their role speicifically. And when Japanese in Japan at that time aren't asking for an apology, I don't see why an apology is necessary to the Koreans. They're not special nor deserving.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Poor governance and or simply a failure to govern themselves does lead to annexation

This is a risible claim. The thing that leads to annexation is one country making the decision to annex another country.

We see this example in various municipalities today all around the world where the certain rural governments cannot sustain herself to provide for their residents so they decide to attach themselves to another. The much larger scale happened to Korea at that time. Though they wanted to modernize, they simply didn't have the strength whether it be financial, public works, expertise, and the public will to make this happen. Their government at that point, simply came to a conclusion that they had no ability

You actually make it sound like Korea asked to be annexed. This is a fantasy narrative; where did you get that "fish in net" quote from again?

Again, I don't see why they need that type of recognition simply because they were under Japanese empire at that time. Pretty much everybody suffered under the said years so what makes Korea so special that they deserve such recognition?

They're not special. Lots of other groups are also asking for - and deserving of - such recognition. That we are not talking about them doesn't mean that I think Koreans are special; it just means that it's not relevant to the matter being discussed i.e. Korean forced labour.

I don't think so. If one political party receives a million votes while one party recives a single digit thousands, in that context, I would not consider the latter as 'large number of people'. Perhaps you and I differ in how we perceive the use of such description.

We're not talking about a democratic vote. We're talking about the suffering of people. If one thousand people were made to suffer, then that is one thousand people who deserve an apology. If one million people were made to suffer then that is one million people who deserve an apology, If one hundred people were made to suffer then that is one hundred people who deserve an apology, Whether or not they deserve an apology is not dependent on how many of them there were.

You are milking it. It's a statement issue in haste as a result of Korean delegates lobbying for such insertion to be implemented or else they would vote against it. It was a complete 180 when their FM just a few weeks ago assured Japan that they would cooperate with the UNESCO enlistment

I'm not milking it; you're just refusing to accept what even the Japanese government acknowledges. That they acknowledged it begrudgingly does not make it false. They would not have included the statement in the UNESCO listing if they didn't know it was true. It is now a matter of record (and rightly so), and you are going to have to deal with that.

While the idea of such free movement is ideal, it's not realistic at that point considering the wage differenc

You're still dodging the point that if they were equal citizens then it would not be 'immigration'. They were second class citizens.

The point I wanted to make was that Koreans at that time (30's and 40's) were mostly in favor of the war effort

The point you were trying to make was that because you couldn't see any evidence of Korean resistance in the war years, Japan was justified in annexing Korea decades earlier. Which is obviously spurious reasoning. In any case I don't think you can use the word mostly. Some were, some weren't.

And I don't see why you need to specifically mention them. ' People under Japan at that time' would be suffice for it does not leave anybody out. On the other hand, if you want to single out Koreans, I don't see why you can't mention their role speicifically. And when Japanese in Japan at that time aren't asking for an apology, I don't see why an apology is necessary to the Koreans. They're not special nor deserving.

They're not special. I think Chinese forced labour, SE Asian forced labour, and POW forced labour all deserve recognition too. Yes, the circumstances and scale were different in each case; but that is irrelevant to each of the individual people who suffered and irrelevant to whether they deserve recognition. I'm only mentioning Koreans specifically because you are specifically arguing that they don't deserve an apology (even though you admit they suffered). It is irrelevant that other groups suffered, it is irrelevant how big the groups were; they all deserve an apology, without having to ask for it. But the fact is that they are asking for it; and you don't have any logically sound or fact-based reason they shouldn't have it. Your position boils down to two central points; firstly, that Koreans don't deserve an apology because other groups also suffered and you 'quantify' the suffering of other groups as greater based on the number of people concerned. But you can not refuse to recognise the suffering of a group of people based on the fact that other groups suffered. It is irrelevant to the suffering they experienced and the moral question of whether or not that was justified (clearly not). And secondly, you argue that Koreans don't deserve recognition because they were Japanese at the time and other Japanese don't ask for recognition; but their status as Japanese citizens was forced upon them by Japan's annexation of their country, and furthermore whether or not one group seeks recognition is irrelevant to whether or not a different group deserves it. Both of these arguments on which your position rests are fallacious and morally repugnant attempts to justify not recognising the suffering a group of people (even though you admit it happened) because you just don't like them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is a risible claim. The thing that leads to annexation is one country making the decision to annex another country.

And/or one country contemplating such idea and asking them.

You actually make it sound like Korea asked to be annexed. This is a fantasy narrative; where did you get that "fish in net" quote from again?

<http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/Article.aspx?aid=1894172

They're not special. Lots of other groups are also asking for - and deserving of - such recognition. That we are not talking about them doesn't mean that I think Koreans are special; it just means that it's not relevant to the matter being discussed i.e. Korean forced labour.

At least we agree that they're not special. What they deserve are minor footnote and nothing more in sense that if the Japanese in Japan aren't asking for it, their only recognition is that they were part of Japan and that their contribution to the war efforts ('suffering') is a mere 7 months and 'comparatively few'.

We're not talking about a democratic vote. We're talking about the suffering of people. If one thousand people were made to suffer, then that is one thousand people who deserve an apology. If one million people were made to suffer then that is one million people who deserve an apology, If one hundred people were made to suffer then that is one hundred people who deserve an apology, Whether or not they deserve an apology is not dependent on how many of them there were.

They suffered as a result of war effort in which they contributed to as duty of citizens under Japan at that time. No apology necessary.

I'm not milking it; you're just refusing to accept what even the Japanese government acknowledges. That they acknowledged it begrudgingly does not make it false. They would not have included the statement in the UNESCO listing if they didn't know it was true. It is now a matter of record (and rightly so), and you are going to have to deal with that.

In this case, it was a false statement issued in haste. This is why FM was criticized for it with media labeling this as a second Kono statement.

You're still dodging the point that if they were equal citizens then it would not be 'immigration'. They were second class citizens.

I don't think so. It's responsible central planning.

The point you were trying to make was that because you couldn't see any evidence of Korean resistance in the war years, Japan was justified in annexing Korea decades earlier. Which is obviously spurious reasoning. In any case I don't think you can use the word mostly. Some were, some weren't.

Of course I can. Where there lacks any noticeable resistance at the same time the military applicant exceeds quota by over 60 times, the word 'most' is definitely applicable.

Yes, the circumstances and scale were different in each case;

Yes but no 'but'. Just because Korea is now a separate state does not change the fact that they were under Japan at that time so their so-called 'suffering' as well as benefits they received did not change. By claiming ' their status as Japanese citizens was forced upon them by Japan's annexation of their country' is a pathetic attempt to somehow align themselves to that POW's and that is by far morraly repugnant than any of the individuals involved during war time. If any apology is lacking, it should be the Koreans of today's generation who should be making apologies to 'Chinese forced labour, SE Asian forced labour, and POW forced labour'.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

And/or one country contemplating such idea and asking them

You quote a single opinion piece which quotes a single Japanese official defending Japan's annexation. It's an interesting read, but it doesn't consitute proof that Korea asked to be annexed and it doesn't have any bearing on the fact that the annexation was a mere formality, sealing the control that Japan had already taken - through superior might - years previously.

What they deserve are minor footnote and nothing more in sense that if the Japanese in Japan aren't asking for it, their only recognition is that they were part of Japan and that their contribution to the war efforts ('suffering') is a mere 7 months and 'comparatively few'

What they deserve - however many 'they' may be - is an apology. And your 'comparatively few' quote does not apply to how much they suffered. It was describing how many of them were conscripted rather than working of their own volition - and that is not the same (even if true - you've proven nothing with that (lone, biased) document as you have no actual figures)

We're talking about the suffering of people. If one thousand people were made to suffer, then that is one thousand people who deserve an apology. If one million people were made to suffer then that is one million people who deserve an apology. If one hundred people were made to suffer then that is one hundred people who deserve an apology. Whether or not they deserve an apology is not dependent on how many of them there were.

They suffered as a result of war effort in which they contributed to as duty of citizens under Japan at that time

A citizenship that was forced upon them.

No apology necessary

Only if you instead apologise for colonising their country and making them citizens in the first place. Okamoto: "the fundamental sin was annexing their country in the first place"

In this case, it was a false statement issued in haste. This is why FM was criticized for it with media labeling this as a second Kono statement

They would not have included the statement in the UNESCO listing if they didn't know it was true. That they included it begrudgingly or 'in haste' (it wasn't really in haste - it was all over the news for quite some time) does not make it false. It is now a matter of record so your saying it is false is neither here nor there, but it does illustrate quite nicely why getting deserved recognition and apology for these victims from revisionist right-wingers is like getting blood from a stone.

I don't think so. It's responsible central planning

...to deny the full benefits of citizenship to people who you have forced to be your citizens

Where there lacks any noticeable resistance at the same time the military applicant exceeds quota by over 60 times, the word 'most' is definitely applicable

You previously said that applicants for labouring jobs were 60 times the quota. Now you're saying it was military applicants. Please clarify. In the meantime, I will clarify that even if the applicants were 60 times the quota, it still doesn't prove that 'most' Koreans supported the war effort. And regardless of this semantic quibbling, the point you were trying to make was that because you couldn't see any evidence of Korean resistance in the war years, Japan was justified in annexing Korea decades earlier; and that is a complete non-sequitur.

Yes, the circumstances and scale were different in each case

Yes but no 'but'

That the circumstances and scale were different in each case (Chinese / POW / SE Asian) is irrelevant to each of the individual people who suffered and irrelevant to whether they deserve recognition. I'm only mentioning Koreans specifically because you are specifically arguing that they don't deserve an apology (even though you admit they suffered). It is irrelevant that other groups suffered, it is irrelevant how big the groups were; they all deserve an apology, without having to ask for it. But the fact is that they are asking for it; and you don't have any logically sound or fact-based reason they shouldn't have it. Your position boils down to two central points; firstly, that Koreans don't deserve an apology because other groups also suffered and you 'quantify' the suffering of other groups as greater based on the number of people concerned. But you can not refuse to recognise the suffering of a group of people based on the fact that other groups suffered. It is irrelevant to the suffering they experienced and the moral question of whether or not that was justified (clearly not). And secondly, you argue that Koreans don't deserve recognition because they were Japanese at the time and other Japanese don't ask for recognition; but their status as Japanese citizens was forced upon them by Japan's annexation of their country, and furthermore whether or not one group seeks recognition is irrelevant to whether or not a different group deserves it. Both of these arguments on which your position rests are fallacious and morally repugnant attempts to justify not recognising the suffering a group of people (even though you admit it happened) because you just don't like them.

By claiming ' their status as Japanese citizens was forced upon them by Japan's annexation of their country' is a pathetic attempt to somehow align themselves to that POW's and that is by far morraly repugnant than any of the individuals involved during war time

No, it is a mere statement of truth and has nothing to do with POWs. I've said time and again that the suffering of POWs and the suffering of Korean forced labourers are separate issues and not directly relevant to one another.

If any apology is lacking, it should be the Koreans of today's generation who should be making apologies to 'Chinese forced labour, SE Asian forced labour, and POW forced labour'.

I would agree that Korea should acknowledge that many Koreans were complicit in abuses against those other groups. But that is not relevant to the matter of whether Japan should apologise to those Koreans who were forced labourers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites