Through Shoichi Watanabe’s essay, this chapter examines the error of describing the Japan-Korea Annexation as “colonial rule.” By looking at the merger of the Korean Empire and the Japanese Empire, the use of the term “annexation” in contemporary English sources, the status of imperial and noble families, and Japan’s development of infrastructure and education, it argues that Japanese governance differed fundamentally from Western-style colonial rule.

June 15, 2020
This essay is essential reading not only for the Japanese people, but for people throughout the world.
It is especially essential reading for those who make their living at the United Nations.

I am republishing, with additions and revisions, a chapter first sent out on September 21, 2015.
The Asahi Shimbun is by no means made up of outstanding players who represent Japan.
People who grew up reading the Asahi Shimbun, and who happened to do a little well in entrance-exam study, enter universities such as Waseda.
If all they did were to wave around distorted ideas because they are childish, that would still be one thing.
But for the realization of those dreadful ideas, they calmly fabricate lies and report them to the world.
Those who came to know the reality, stopped subscribing to the Asahi, including its other weekly magazines, and began subscribing to monthly magazines they had hardly read before, must all have thought the same thing.
They must have realized that, for a long time, they had regarded Shoichi Watanabe, a genuine scholar, as a right-wing figure because of the prejudice planted in them by the Asahi.
As I have written before, they must also feel that this is precisely Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are a-Changin’.”
The following is from a ten-page essay that Mr. Shoichi Watanabe published in this month’s issue of the monthly magazine Seiron.
This essay is essential reading not only for the Japanese people, but for people throughout the world.
It is especially essential reading for those who make their living at the United Nations.
All people with clear insight should realize that, here again, the correctness of my argument has been proved one hundred percent.
The emphasis in bold is mine.
The preceding passage is omitted.

The Phrase “Colonial Rule,” Born of Extreme Ignorance and Lack of Study

I am also astonished that the report of the Advisory Panel uses the phrase “colonial rule.”
How on earth can they be so ignorant?
It is truly deplorable.
What was Korea at the time Japan and Korea were annexed?
It was the Korean Empire.
Through the Japan-Korea Annexation, it became one with Japan.
One empire does not make another empire into a colony.
This was a merger of empires.
Look at the English-language documents of the time.
In none of them is the word “colonization” used.
The word is “annexation.”
The relatives of the Emperor became members of the Imperial Family, and the relatives of the House of Yi became members of the royal nobility.
Beneath them, a common Japanese-Korean peerage was established.
The yangban, too, took the titles of baron, viscount, and count.
That is evidence that it was a merger of empires.
At the time of the merger, Korea was truly an extremely poor country, and there were even members of the royal nobility for whom it was difficult simply to maintain appearances.
Therefore, in order to support the royal nobility, Japan provided a budget.
There was a period when that budget was larger than the budget provided to Japan’s own Imperial Family.
Colonial rule generally means subordinating the inhabitants of the colony and repeatedly exploiting and plundering them.
But Japan was different.
Japan treated the people of Korea as Japanese nationals.
It developed infrastructure such as railways, schools, and dams, and spread practical literacy through education.
The colonial policies of Western countries and Japan’s governance were fundamentally different, and this must be clearly understood.
Nor was this limited to the Korean Peninsula.
There were also places where living standards rose remarkably, and where people still feel gratitude for Japanese governance.
These were not things that can be called colonial rule.
The report of the Advisory Panel contains scattered references to colonization and colonial rule, but did no one possess this basic understanding?
It is a lack of study.
In that respect, in the Prime Minister’s statement, the word “colonial” is used chiefly in reference to white nations.
I pay tribute to the Prime Minister’s insight.
This essay continues.