Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact

This Article

Mr. Ramseyer’s vicry” says Mr. Fujiwara Nobukatsu Books completely refuting the theory of the comfort women being sex slaves published in Japan, South Korea and the United States (2. Mr. Fujioka Nobukatsu’s speech)

By Fujioka Nobukatsu, J. Mark Ramseyer,

Professor Fujioka Nobukatsu’’s Speech

Hello, I am Fujioka Nobukatsu. I would like to speak about four things.

First, about Professor Ramseyer’s great fight to resolutely protect academic freedom.

I am tremendously moved by Professor Ramseyer’s resilient will and scholarly spirit, fighting for academic freedom and would like to express my heart-felt respect and gratitude.

We, International Research Institute of Controversial Histories, held an urgent symposium in April 2021 to totally support Professor Ramseyer, which eventually led to the publication of this Japanese translation book of Professor Ramseyer’s papers.

We must confirm here the fact that not a single criticism appeared against the logical foundation of Professor Ramseyer’s papers, despite a barrage of criticism over the past three years. His critics have been “completely refuted.” Hereby, we proudly declare Professor Ramseyer’s victory in the international historical controversy warfare.

On July 10 this year, we will hold a symposium in Tokyo, inviting Professor Ramseyer. The bond of the truth-seeking people in these three countries will become further consolidated.

Second, about the fact that the frame of Ramseyer comfort women theory was completed and announced quite coincidently in 1991, the year when a comfort woman came out for the first time. Purely out of academic interest, Professor Ramseyer analyzed the economic aspect of the prewar prostitution system in Japan. The Asahi Newspaper dated December 21, 1990 introduced Professor Ramseyer, aged 36 at that time, with the title “denial of special Japanese theory,” foretelling the publication of his paper.

This is the first paper (1991) mentioned in the Japanese-version book. He did not write the paper after the comfort women issue appeared but studied the contractual system of prostitutes in the prewar Japan. And the system was the same with that of military comfort women. That is, the comfort women issue had been completely refuted by Professor Ramseyer before it came up. This is the biggest point we want to present in this book. We found that the Korean version book compiled by our comrades in South Korea also contains this first paper and were extremely delighted to know that we share the same awareness of the problem.

Third, why then is it that the comfort women issue has remained unsolved for so long? The biggest obstacle has been the apologetic diplomacy on the part of the Japanese Government.

In August 1991, the comfort women issue started with the coming-out of former comfort women, including Kim Hak-sun. In January of the next year, the then Prime Minister Miyazawa visited South Korea and apologized without having conducted any investigation. He should never have done so, as head of State. Thus, the year 1992 became “a year of a big bang in the comfort women issue.”

In the same year, however, historian Mr. Hata Ikuhiko immediately conducted on-the-spot investigation in Jeju Island and revealed Yoshida Seiji’s lie. In addition, scholar on the Korean Peninsula Mr. Nishioka Tsutomu clearly proved that comfort women’s statements lacked credibility. Thus, the two pillars sustaining the lies about the comfort women issue were completely denied academically and empirically. The comfort women issue was settled within Japan almost as soon as the issue came up. Evidentially, The Asahi Newspaper was no longer able to write Yoshida’s lie after that.

Nevertheless, Cabinet Secretary Kono Yohei announced the “Kono statement,” seemingly admitting forced abduction of comfort women and sex slaves as facts and went as far as to say that he would “educate” children about the comfort women issue. This was the beginning of the history textbook issue. The Kono statement was a political paper, swallowing up what activists claim and diplomatically succumbing to the fallacy. Last year was the 30th anniversary of the Kono statement in 1993. It took us thirty long years to overcome a lie once the government admitted it as fact.

In this coming March, a book entitled Japan’s Holocaust is slated to be published in the United States. The book reportedly says that Japan committed holocaust greater in scale than the one committed by the Nazi Germany under the Emperor’s order. We must not have it pass nonchalantly but instantly smash it. We must not admit it a bit.

Fourth, I want to refer to the Japanese Foreign Minstry’s apologetic diplomacy. The biggest trigger in making the comfort women issue international was the comfort women resolution in the House Committee of the United States Congress in 2007.

In the resolution, it was said that the Japanese military comfort women were “one of the biggest incidences of human trafficking in the twentieth century.” As I mentioned in the “Seiron (true argument)” column of The Sankei Newspaper dated December 25 last year, “human trafficking” means illegal trading of slaves. The term is totally irrelevant and impermissible for Japan. However, the then

Prime Minister Abe Shinzo admitted it while he visited the United States in 2015.

“Human trafficking” has two meanings: it literally means trafficking of slaves and at the same time there is a literally exaggerated expression calling the act of sending forth one’s daughter as a prostitute “human trafficking.” Prime Minister Abe admitted to the case of comfort women being called “human trafficking” in the latter sense. This was a deceptive trick in the process of translation between English and Japanese. According to those near the Prime Minister, the then Vice-President Biden had frequently used the term “human trafficking” during preliminary negotiations, intending to lead Japan into the trap.

I had noticed this beforehand and directly advised the Prime Minister before his visit to the United States, but, alas, it was too late. In this case, I presume there were some cunning betrayers within the Foreign Ministry. They are to be duly blamed.

Thank you very much for your attention.