Annual event held in Japan pushing claim over S Korea-held isles

Why is the placard in English? Who are they appealing? Pathetic!

The US backs Japan 

The US backs South Korea as well. There are thousands of US military stationed there right now if you didnt know.

gogogoToday  07:35 am JST

The US backs Japan that they are Japanese land

In principle this is correct. The US had considered the Liancourt Rocks to be Japanese territory and in fact had even conducted bombing training on them. When Syngman Rhee drew his territorial line and arbitrarily included the Liancourt Rocks as South Korean, the US was alarmed. The US State Dept advised Japan to take South Korea to the International Court of Justice to settle this matter. Japan did so but South Korea refused to go before the ICJ. Japan has rquested 2 further times since then and South Korea has refused to settle the matter at the ICJ three times.

In practice, the US continues to refrain from direct intervention in this matter as the US-ROK military alliance vis-a-vis North Korea has always taken precedence for obvious reasons.

While issues like the CW Agreement and Forced Labor issues may conceivably be resolved under the Yoon administration through direct negotiations with Japan, the Liancourt Rocks dispute can only be settled by an objective international forum. Undoubtedly the US could pressure the Yoon administration to go to the ICJ, however if a ruling is found in Japan's favor, which is very likely, Yoon would lose national support. Thereby allowing the next South

Failure to communicate is the cause of all FAILURES.

AxelToday 10:49 am JST

Why is the placard in English? Who are they appealing? Pathetic!

The sign next to it is not in English but they centered on that because this is the English language website for JT. Not pathetic at all, just logical.

Korean administration to revert to a Moon-like anti-Japan pro-North Korea agenda that would obstruct US strategic policy.

William MirrieleesToday  09:12 am JST

US backs Japan that they are Japanese land, Korea needs to get with the program and realize they don't own these and stop the petty "it's mine" game.

*Where do you get your information? Depends on what the surrender document said. At that time, Japan was limited to the four main island and some smaller islands.. Might be good to research the ori**ginal document*

"This is the letter from Dean Rusk, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, to Yang Yu Chan, the ROK Ambassador to the United States, which clearly denied the claims of the ROK in response to ROK's Takeshima-related requests (in two separate letters written on July 19 and August 2, 1951) regarding the draft of the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

When drafting the treaty, the ROK requested to include Takeshima as an area that Japan should renounce, but the U.S. Government clearly rejected the ROK's claim, stating that "Takeshima ... was ... never treated as part of Korea and ... does not ever appear before to have been claimed by Korea."

Accordingly, this solidifies the Japanese claims of that Takeshima is a territory of Japan in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, and proves the Japanese claim to be rightful.

LanguageEnglishPublic accessAvailable to the publicRepositoryTokyo Main Library of the National Diet Library (Original Repository: The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA))

MediummicrofilmCopies4 pagesReference No.t1951081000101Reference & InformationFollow the instruction at the National Diet Library to see microfilm (Request Code LOT reel 9, Microfilm number: 00994-00997) (Or, follow the instruction at the NARA to see microfilm)

NotesOriginal is owned by National Archives and Records Administration. (This image is prepared from the original paper. Specify the Declassified Number when using the image.)

Letter sent from the U.S. Government to the Korean Government on August 10, 1951(Letter from Dean Rusk, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, to Yang Yu Chan, the ROK Ambassador to the United States [The "Rusk Letter"]) | Takeshima Archives Portal (cas.go.jp)

That sign is retarded.

I was a bit torn on the issue until I saw this very convincing sign. Now I know where I stand. Thank you protestor for making such a convincing and wonderful sign to sway my opinion.

the public asserted = The republic of Korea asserted

Both countries rely and trust in each other as partners in business and mutual assistance if they are attacked by an enemy, e.g. North Korea? So, this island, territory issues could be resolved if both countries agree on sharing

The Ideal win win solution is to treat these rocks like the US and Russia do with the ISS.

Set up a base there with radar, lighthouse and defensive missiles manned by both sides to provide assistance to fisherman and vessels in the area, and to deter common enemies.

Agree to shared administration and ownership, otherwise continue to let this be a thorn in relations between Japan and South Korea. The US would support such an outcome as it would strengthen the working relationship between Japan and South Korea, leading to more trust and respect for each other.

The US backs Japan that they are Japanese land, Korea needs to get with the program and realize they don't own these and stop the petty "it's mine" game.

The US backs Japan that they are Japanese land, Korea needs to get with the program and realize they don't own these and stop the petty "it's mine" game

That is not an accurate statement. Japan claims that it acquired Dokdo/Takeshima as a terra nullius in 1905, whereas Korea rejects Japan's claim on the ground that Dokdo was a Korean island, not a terra nullius, which Japan usurped llegally in 1905. The dispute was exacerbated further due to the inconsistent U.S. policy in the disposition of the disputed island during the Allied occupation of Japan (1945-1952). Initially, the U.S. decided to return Dokdo/Takeshima to Korea in accordance with the Cairo Declaration (1943) and the Potsdam Declaration (1945). Furthermore, all of the U.S. drafts of the peace treaty with Japan from 1947 to November 1949 explicitly stipulated the return of Dokdo/Takeshima to Korea. However, the U.S. became apprehensive about the possibility of the Communist takeover of the entire Korean Peninsula, the U.S. wanted to let Japan retain the disputed island in its December 1949 draft of the peace treaty. Subsequently, the U.S. and Great Britain worked out a compromise not to contain any provision concerning the disposition of Dokdo/Takeshima in the San Francisco Peace Treaty of September 1951. As a result, both Japan and South Korea have interpreted the meaning of the peace treaty differently. Since the U.S. has not rescinded its initial decision in 1946 on Dokdo/Takeshima with a new SCAP directive during the Allied occupation or by signing a new treaty nullifying the 1946 decision, Korea’s legal claim to Dokdo/Takeshima is clearly stronger than Japan’s insofar as the U.S. disposition of the Dokdo/Takeshima during the Allied occupation of Japan is concerned.  The US currently says it takes no position on the dispute.

ewww, just losers who have issues, poor souls carry so much hate within themselves. I hope they find peace that can treat their hate filled hearts.

Ownership of Dokto Island

The Island of Dokto (otherwise called Liancourt and Taka Shima) is in the Sea of Japan approximately midway between Korea and Honshu(131.80E,36.20N). This Island is, in fact, only a group of barren, uninhabited rocks. When the Treaty of Peace with Japan was being drafted, the public asserted its claims to Dokto but the United States concluded that they remained under Japanese sovereignty and the Island was not included among the

Islands that Japan released from its ownership under the Peace Treaty.

The Republic of Korea has been confidentially informed of the United States position regarding the islands but our position has not been made public. Though the United States considers that the islands are Japanese territory-, we have declined to interfere in the dispute. Our position has been that the dispute might properly be referred to the International Court of Justice and this suggestion has been informally conveyed to the Republic of Korea.

Report of Van Fleet mission to the Far East

 the weak argument from the Japanese perspective is that they belonged to no one in 1905 so we took them. Did they really think that the Koreans with centuries of seafaring / fishing contact with the area mysteriously "Didn't Know" they existed.

So were Japanese with centuries of seafaring / fishing contact with the area. Just knowing the existence of rocks wouldn't make "the owner" . Regardless, unlike Japanese records, Korea does not have any meaningful records/maps which justify and support even the assumption that they have known these rocks.

Between Chosun dynasty and Japan, there was a territorial negotiation wrt Ulleung-do in 1690's where Japan gave up its ownership for the sake of better relation with the dynasty. The dynasty had never claim its ownership over these rocks then, which basically contradicts with Korean major narratives. After this diplomatic negotiation, Japan prohibited Japanese fisheries to work around Ulleung-do, yet never prohibited them to work around these rocks.

The two sides should probably agree either on (1) joint ownership, or (2) joint administration with no ownership. After all, the real issue is fishing rights. But possession is nine-tenths of the law, and Korea possesses it - and there are the historical problems - so it's a tough one to resolve.

they really flew to japan to protest? they really love democracy and freedom of speech, unlike s korea.

And I stand by my offering that the principal reason for appropriating the island was that it was just a part of Japans gradual annexation of the whole Korean peninsula, with the bonus of it serving as an important military outpost in the Russo-Japan war.

OR, maybe it was just a big coincidence that all of these matters happened literally months or a little longer apart. No it was by design.

And I stand by my comment that SCAP changed it's mind on what and wasn't Japanese/Korean territory because of it's fear of a communist wave spreading.

It would have been unbearable to have such a strategic location fall into the hands of the New Enemy.

Timing? And historical events, i.e., Japan's relative strength then in Asia? when Japan officially announced to the world about ownership? There're many of those who insist that point. CCP China also argues such geopolitical conditions of those days when Japan incorporated Senkaku islands. But Hey, If it is considered unfair, how come your ilk keeps pointing out that Japan lost the war and lost everything except 4 major islands and several adjacent islands as determined by Allies? How come possession is 9/10 of the law.. etc. Contradictory I must say.

CaptDingleheimer....

That sign is retarded.

You can't say that anymore....

You should say.... That sign is special.

Actually, being from Massachusetts what I should have said was "That sign in retahded."

Desert TortoiseFeb. 24  09:59 am JST

In principle this is correct. The US had considered the Liancourt Rocks to be Japanese territory and in fact had even conducted bombing training on them. When Syngman Rhee drew his territorial line and arbitrarily included the Liancourt Rocks as South Korean, the US was alarmed. The US State Dept advised Japan to take South Korea to the International Court of Justice to settle this matter. Japan did so but South Korea refused to go before the ICJ. Japan has rquested 2 further times since then and South Korea has refused to settle the matter at the ICJ three times.

That is simply not true. The original drafts of the San Francisco Treaty explicitly returned Dokdo to Korea.

Damn straight it's true.

""This is the letter from Dean Rusk, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, to Yang Yu Chan, the ROK Ambassador to the United States, which clearly denied the claims of the ROK in response to ROK's Takeshima-related requests (in two separate letters written on July 19 and August 2, 1951) regarding the draft of the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

When drafting the treaty, the ROK requested to include Takeshima as an area that Japan should renounce, but the U.S. Government clearly rejected the ROK's claim, stating that "Takeshima ... was ... never treated as part of Korea and ... does not ever appear before to have been claimed by Korea."

Accordingly, this solidifies the Japanese claims of that Takeshima is a territory of Japan in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, and proves the Japanese claim to be rightful."

Stick to copying and pasting military info DT.

Draw a line somewhere down the middle of the island then…

The undeniable fact is that these islands are unequivocally Japanese territory.

browny1Today  06:30 pm JST

kennyg - thanks for your reply.

Actually documents aplenty do exist. You can research those for yourself.

If this is true then South Korea could go to the ICJ fora slam dunk. Yet thy have refused to settle the dispute at the ICJ three times. Why is that?

Actually documents aplenty do exist. You can research those for yourself.

There would be no documents which I have never checked so far as long as S.Korea presents those as their backbones. Yet let me repeat none of them captured the rocks as accurate as those from Japan, in terms of the position, size, naming.... . All they have done are so far creating their own stories to make up for their narratives.

Japanese land/water and territory.

Recognize by USA as Japanese.

WTO recognized as Japanese.

When did S.Korea took the island? Early 1950s after Japan renounce war, pacifist country, under USA supervision.... Thats when brave Koreans came, so strong and brave! Knowing 100% Japan can do nothing in return. Brave Korea! !

Now in 2023 Korean steal, theft, crime, illegal occupation, they want Japan to recognize the island as Korean.

Thats the same as if Japan took Korea over again and then we demand the world to recognize Korea as Japanese! Yet the Korean is so hypocritical when it's the other way around!! No problem when Korea does is!! Inferior Complex half a County.

Reasonable people should be able to come to an agreement over something as trivial as this.

This is completely false and there's no such fact.

Read the full contents of this document. The abstract is quoted verbatim:

"The territorial dispute over Dokdo/Takeshima (or Liancourt Rocks) has frequently strained South Korean-Japanese relations in the post World War II era. Japan claims that it acquired Dokdo/Takeshima as a terra nullius in 1905, whereas Korea rejects Japan's claim on the ground that Dokdo was a Korean island, not a terra nullius, which Japan usurped llegally in 1905.The dispute was exacerbated further due to the inconsistent U.S. policy in the disposition of the disputed island during the Allied occupation of Japan (1945-1952). Initially, the U.S. decided to return Dokdo/Takeshima to Korea in accordance with the Cairo Declaration (1943) and the Potsdam Declaration (1945). Furthermore, all of the U.S. drafts of the peace treaty with Japan from 1947 to November 1949 explicitly stipulated the return of Dokdo/Takeshima to Korea. However, the U.S. became apprehensive about the possibility of the Communist takeover of the entire Korean Peninsula, the U.S. wanted to let Japan retain the disputed island in its December 1949 draft of the peace treaty. Subsequently, the U.S. and Great Britain worked out a compromise not to contain any provision concerning the disposition of Dokdo/Takeshima in the San Francisco Peace Treaty of September 1951. As a result, both Japan and South Korea have interpreted the meaning of the peace treaty differently. Since the U.S. has not rescinded its initial decision in 1946 on Dokdo/Takeshima with a new SCAP directive during the Allied occupation or by signing a new treaty nullifying the 1946 decision, Korea’s legal claim to Dokdo/Takeshima is clearly stronger than Japan’s insofar as the U.S. disposition of the Dokdo/Takeshima during the Allied occupation of Japan is concerned." 

http://www.icks.org/data/ijks/1482459534_add_file_5.pdf

Thanks for your link and quotation.

To be sure, a caveat was added to SCAPIN No. 677 that “Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration.”

Another instruction (SCAPIN No. 1033 of June 22, 1946), prohibited Japanese nationals from approaching within 12 miles of Dokdo.19 Dokdo’s exclusion from Japan remained in effect throughout the remainder of the Allied occupation."

Yet. Either you or Hong Nack Kim , Korean-american political scientist forgot there was also another caveat added to SCAPIN No.1033.

The present authorization is not an expression of allied policy relative to ultimate determination of national jurisdiction, international boundaries, or fishing rights in the area concerned or in any other area. ...quoted verbatim.

With regard to Imperial Ordinance No. 41 which Korean academia including those overseas Korean ethnic historians like himself of refers to,  

available documents verify that Sokdo was Dokdo, as both essentially mean the same thing: “rock island.” As the text of the ordinance was written in Chinese characters, the “Sok” (rock) meant the dialectical Korean, “Dok” or “Dol.”"

There are no such documents available to verify Sokdo is Dokdo at all. This part is the one made up later by Korean narratives, as it completely contradicts with other Korean narratives such that they have been knowing this rocks from long time ago, used to call this island Usangdo(干山島）. Yet, it didn't specify it by Usangdo(干山島）in Chinese character. Didn't specify it by Dok-do (独島) either despite Imperial Ordinance No. 41 actually specified the point the name of (鬱陵島）Ulleung-do was to be revised to 鬱島(Ull-do), yet never refer to the proper name of Dok-do nor name revision of these rocks in there.

Around Ulleungdo, there are Juk-do, Gwaneumdo(rock island), several other small rock islands. Their Sokdo must be one of them. Regardless, unlike Japan, there's no traceable effective control over the disputed rocks by the Korean dynasty at all

Finally, your original post...

General MacArthur always considered them to be land taken from Korea illegally by Japan. The US State Department in conjunction with the US Navy did an extensive study of the history of the small outlying islands of Japan and came to the same conclusion, that Dokdo was always part of Korea.

This is the part I called untrue. I know SCAPIN677/1033.

I don’t see the point of the protest. Korea already de-facto occupying the island in the same manner as Russia occupying Northern territories.

In principle this is correct. The US had considered the Liancourt Rocks to be Japanese territory and in fact had even conducted bombing training on them. When Syngman Rhee drew his territorial line and arbitrarily included the Liancourt Rocks as South Korean, the US was alarmed. The US State Dept advised Japan to take South Korea to the International Court of Justice to settle this matter. Japan did so but South Korea refused to go before the ICJ. Japan has rquested 2 further times since then and South Korea has refused to settle the matter at the ICJ three times.

That is simply not true. The original drafts of the San Francisco Treaty explicitly returned Dokdo to Korea. General MacArthur always considered them to be land taken from Korea illegally by Japan. The US State Department in conjunction with the US Navy did an extensive study of the history of the small outlying islands of Japan and came to the same conclusion, that Dokdo was always part of Korea. It was in fact incorporated into a mainland Korea county in a 1900 governmental reorganization by the Korean Kingdom before Japan annexed Korea.

The wording the the eventual San Francisco Treaty was changed circa 1949-1950 to omit any mention of Dokdo one way or the other as the US began to fear Korea falling to the Communists. The US wanted to give Japan the option of occupying it in the event Korea became a unified Communist nation, something that did not come to pass. Please do not distort history. Dokdo has always been part of Korea.

That is simply not true. The original drafts of the San Francisco Treaty explicitly returned Dokdo to Korea. General MacArthur always considered them to be land taken from Korea illegally by Japan. The US State Department in conjunction with the US Navy did an extensive study of the history of the small outlying islands of Japan and came to the same conclusion, that Dokdo was always part of Korea.

This is completely false and there's no such fact.

It was in fact incorporated into a mainland Korea county in a 1900 governmental reorganization by the Korean Kingdom before Japan annexed Korea.

Typical Korean narrative. 1900大韓帝国勅令41号 merely referred to Ulleung-Do and Juk-Do. Not Dok-do.

More from the above link"

"The Japanese takeover of Dokdo/Takeshima as a terra nullius in 1905 was regarded as completely unjustifiable and illegitimate by the Koreans in view of the fact that on October 25, 1900, or four years before the Japanese incorporation of the island, the Korean International Journal of Korean Studies • Vol. XIII, No. 2 99 government had incorporated Dokdo as part of Ullungdo county by promulgating Imperial Ordinance No. 41 (Article 2).7 Although Japanese critics of this ordinance assert that the island named in the document, Sokdo (in Chinese character), is not Dokdo but refers to Jukseodo, located in the northeastern corner of Ullungdo, available documents verify that Sokdo was Dokdo, as both essentially mean the same thing: “rock island.” As the text of the ordinance was written in Chinese characters, the “Sok” (rock) meant the dialectical Korean, “Dok” or “Dol.”"

The Allied and US position wrt Dokdo during the occupation of Japan:

"Regarding the disposition of Japan’s overseas territories, which it had acquired from 1895 to 1945, the Allied Powers were determined to implement the terms of the Cairo Declaration of 1943 and the Potsdam Declaration of 1945. As a result, the Koreans did not anticipate any problem in recovering their lost land from Japan. Indeed, the Koreans were gratified to see a manifestation of U.S. intentions to return Dokdo to Korea in 1946. SCAP’s first major opinion concerning the territory of postwar Japan was cited in an instruction SCAP gave to the government of occupied Japan. The order, SCAPIN (or SCAP instruction) No. 677 of January 29, 1946, specifically defined Japanese territory and stated that the islands in dispute between Japan and Korea—Utsuryo Island (Ullungto), Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) and Quelpart Island (Chejuto)—were to be excluded from Japan’s political or administrative authority. To be sure, a caveat was added to SCAPIN No. 677 that “Nothing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration.”18 Another instruction (SCAPIN No. 1033 of June 22, 1946), prohibited Japanese nationals from approaching within 12 miles of Dokdo.19 Dokdo’s exclusion from Japan remained in effect throughout the remainder of the Allied occupation."

One last point for tonight, following the issuance of SCAPIN 677 in January 1946 administration of Dokdo was transferred to the US military government in South Korea. Upon the formation of the Republic of Korea on 15 August 1948 the US transferred the administration of all South Korean territory including Dokdo over to the South Korean government.

Japanese and Koreans have to sit and try to discuss an end to this endless soap opera. Both countries are allies? Both countries rely and trust in each other as partners in business and mutual assistance if they are attacked by an enemy, e.g. North Korea? So, this island, territory issues could be resolved if both countries agree on sharing, yes, dividing, peacefully this territory, in the name of the partnership, friendship and non-aggression commitment, self-protection. This would be a great step towards strengthening the ties between two countries with a long history and a bright future if decide to spend on a positive agenda instead of eternally revolving the past. A win win agreement must be reached, for the best interest of both nations.

kennyg - thanks for your reply.

Actually documents aplenty do exist. You can research those for yourself.

And I stand by my offering that the principal reason for appropriating the island was that it was just a part of Japans gradual annexation of the whole Korean peninsula, with the bonus of it serving as an important military outpost in the Russo-Japan war.

OR, maybe it was just a big coincidence that all of these matters happened literally months or a little longer apart. No it was by design.

And I stand by my comment that SCAP changed it's mind on what and wasn't Japanese/Korean territory because of it's fear of a communist wave spreading.

It would have been unbearable to have such a strategic location fall into the hands of the New Enemy.

So make it Japanese.

Personally I have not a wink of care one way or the other, but to take the position that somehow the Japanese govt decided these empty islands were beneficial for a few seal fishermen or the like is quite naive imo.

Especially considering the timing.

kennyg - thanks for the reply.

But you really lost me with "your ilk".

In fact your ramble has quite lost me completely. What do your last few sentences mean???

I am merely stating another side to the story that probably has at least the same credibility as the one put forward by some posters here.

I have no interest in taking sides as I previously stated.

Simply - seizing the island originally was done primarily as a military opportunity and as a means to secure more territory.

I'm not knocking that - just acknowledging that it fits with the political / military climate of the era - 115 years ago.

OR as I stated you can believe it's all a coincidence. Same for SCAPs turnabout.

Failure to communicate is the cause of all FAILURES.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=452XjnaHr1A

I meant to post this clip on communication. Whoops O_O

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=452XjnaHr1A

CaptDingleheimer....

That sign is retarded.

You can't say that anymore....

You should say.... That sign is special.

Telling the truth, I have a row with my neighbor over the boundary between our land plots. Before we moved in, the area to the north of our land was a swampy hollow. There were red-painted stakes at four corners marking the boundaries our land. But a developer reclaiming the neighboring land filled dirt in the area, and so the boundaries became very murky.

My position is clear, though. I had a survey company measure the land plot to make sure the measurement was correct. A survey was conducted again after we had moved in at the request of the landowner on the other side of the plot. Before we moved in, we had stone walls built around the lower side of the land according to lines shown by the marker stakes. After we moved in, we had concrete-block walls built on and around the stone walls about one or two inches inside. But the developer filled in dirt over the stone wall to the concrete-block wall burying the base of the stone wall completely.

Now, it looks as if the concrete-block wall was a boundary. And so, my neighbor built a semi-permanent structure using our concrete-block wall as a prop. When I complained, he said he had been told by the former owner of his land plot that that was the boundary. He even hinted that our concrete-block wall was intruding into his property.

A lesson that should be learned from this: When the boundary is in dispute between two neighbors, no party should be allowed to alter the shape of the land, saying one-sidedly that the land in question was his. The same with an international border dispute.

The Japanese getting all adamant about these useless islands are exactly the same as the Koreans getting all adamant about them. There's no difference between nationalists. If the shoe fits........

Japan gets the Northern Territories. South Korea gets Dokto. China gets Senkaku. All 3 win. Asia for Asians.

Japan, in the leadup to Koreas annexation in 1910 had assumed power and control over Korea by administering it as a "protectorate"in 1905. Of course it had been imposing itself in Koreas affairs for some time. Queen Mins assassination in 1895 really stirred up resentment. In the 1904 - 1905 Russian war Japan saw fit to declare the island terra nullius and declare it Japanese territory primarily as a military outlook.

Under the annexation all Korean territory essentially belonged to Japan.

At wars end all occupied territories were returned to Korea which according to SCAPIN 677 issued by the US in 1946 included Takeshima.

This decision was later reversed in 1949 with amendments to the original orders.

Why?

Well by that time there was the huge upheaval in China with the Communist revolution and Mao had taken control of the country. In addition the terror of Stalins communist Russia was on the doorstep.

US feared an avalanche of communism sweeping through the Korean peninsula and Takeshima was seen to be a vital strategic military point if a war broke out. So they switched their decision to now state that Takeshima was in fact Japanese territory.

So the critical point in all of this is what jurisdiction did SCAP have over these issues. Who were they to determine the outcome of historical land ownership / disputes?

Historically there can be claims by both sides, but the weak argument from the Japanese perspective is that they belonged to no one in 1905 so we took them. Did they really think that the Koreans with centuries of seafaring / fishing contact with the area mysteriously "Didn't Know" they existed.

Codswallop.

They were absorbed into the expanding military state of Japan as a vantage point in the unstable Japan Sea.

Looking at the islands on Google maps.... actually quite difficult to find, there isn't much to see. I find that they are almost exactly between South Korea and Japan. Also there are two groups of islands of about equal size.

Simple solution.... South Korea gets west side, Japan east side.

Now they can get back to more serious matters like who has the best pop groups.

A simple best of 3 Rock , scissors and paper should solve this dispute.

Or just give it to China... :)

US backs Japan that they are Japanese land, Korea needs to get with the program and realize they don't own these and stop the petty "it's mine" game.

Where do you get your information? Depends on what the surrender document said. At that time, Japan was limited to the four main island and some smaller islands.. Might be good to research the original document

Japan must protect its territories at all costs, and drive out the Nazi (or whatever) from Takeshima. We must invade Takeshima now!

This is the consequence when two countries are brainwashed by nationalists conservative oyajis on both sides.

Japan and Korea are one of the very few countries in the world literally still living in the past with their mindset and claims.

Seems to me that Japan and China actually have a lot in common.