Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact


SDHF Newsletter No.259 Gunkanjima(Battleship) No.7

Gunkanjima (Battleship Island): A World Heritage Site Soiled by Korea
–Another distortion of history, akin to the “comfort women”
By Matsuki Kunitoshi
Series No.7: Part 3: Chapter 11, 12

December 16, 2019  

Chapter 11 is titled ‘Statues of a comfort woman and a mobilized worker.’
In January 1992, “Wednesday demonstrations” in front of the Japanese Embassy for the resolution of the Japanese military comfort women issue began. To celebrate the 1000th anniversary of the demonstrations in December 2011, a comfort girl statue called the “Monument of Peace” was installed.
Thereafter, more than 60 comfort woman statues have been placed all over Korea. It is mind boggling that 40 Japanese cities still maintain “sister city” relationships with these Korean cities. This will encourage brazenness on the part of Koreans regarding their position on the comfort woman issue.
Korean activists are planting statues all over the world. According to a list in the book, statues have been planted in 19 places, including in America, Canada, Australia, Germany Nepal and The Philippines.
And now, mobilized worker statutes are to be built. The sheer falsehood of the mobilized workers, as explained in this series, stand to be propagated world-wide.
The author writes:
They don’t see how the rest of the world is inwardly dumbfounded at their actions, wondering why Koreans did not try to protect their own women in the first place. On top of that, they even built statues of a mobilized worker, which will only increase overseas antipathy, “What a helpless, pitiful people Koreans are!”
Chapter 12 is titled ‘Korean judiciary intent on hurting Japanese companies.’
In August 2011, the Korean Constitutional Court ruled that it is against the Constitution for the Korean Government not to make any efforts to concretely resolve the issue of claims of compensation for the Japanese military comfort women. The issue of compensation between Japan and Korea was completely and finally resolved by the “Agreement concerning the Settlement of Problems in regard of Property and Claims between Japan and Korea and Economic Cooperation,” following the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea, which was concluded in 1965.
However, in a lawsuit against Shin-Nittetsu (currently Shin-Nittetsu Sumikin) and Mitsubishi Jukogyo (Heavy Industries) held on May 2012, the Korean Supreme Court ruled that “individual claims are valid,” and nullified a previous decision, in which the plaintiff lost, and returned the case to the High Court.
The Korean Supreme Court stated on this occasion:
On the premise that Japan’s colonial control was legal, the Japanese court ruled that the National Mobilization Act duly applies to the plaintiff. However, it is clearly against the sense of values held by the Korean Constitution that regards Japanese control of Korea as merely an illegal occupation and, therefore, the forced mobilization of Koreans is against the law.
This means that any action taken by the Japanese government and Japanese companies during Japanese rule of Korea could be deemed illegal. This line of thinking is contrary to modern international law.

Questions are welcome.

MOTEKI Hiromichi, Acting Chairman
for KASE Hideaki, Chairman
Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact