Published on September 21, 2019.
Based on an essay by Shoichi Watanabe published in the monthly magazine Sound Argument, this chapter argues that it is mistaken to describe the Japan-Korea Annexation as “colonial rule.”
It explains that English documents of the time used the term “annexation,” not “colonization,” and discusses the merger of the Empire of Japan and the Korean Empire, the systems of imperial, princely, and peerage families, infrastructure development, education, and the fundamental difference between Western colonial policy and Japanese rule.

September 21, 2019.
The phrase “colonial rule,” which shows the utmost ignorance and lack of study… I am also astonished that the report of the advisory panel of experts contains the phrase “colonial rule.”
Why on earth are they so utterly ignorant?
It is truly deplorable.
In none of them is the word “colonization” used.
It is “annexation.”
This is a chapter I published on September 21, 2015, under that title.
People who stopped subscribing to the Asahi Shimbun, including its other weekly magazines, after learning the reality that the Asahi Shimbun is not at all made up of excellent players who represent Japan,
that people who grew up reading the Asahi Shimbun and happened to have somewhat good scores in entrance-exam study,
entered Waseda and the like, and because of their childishness not only brandish distorted ideas,
but, for the sake of realizing those terrifying ideas, calmly fabricate lies and report them to the world,
and who then began subscribing to monthly magazines that they had hardly read before, must all think the same thing.
They must think about how, for a long time, because of the preconceptions planted by the Asahi,
they had regarded Shoichi Watanabe, a genuine scholar,
as a man of the right.
As I wrote before, they must also feel that this is exactly 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 Sound Argument.
All people with penetrating insight should realize here as well that the correctness of my argument has been proven one hundred percent.
The emphasis in bold is mine.
The opening passage is omitted.
The phrase “colonial rule,” which shows the utmost ignorance and lack of study.
I am also astonished that the report of the advisory panel of experts contains the phrase “colonial rule.”
Why on earth are they so utterly ignorant?
It is truly deplorable.
What was Korea when Japan and Korea were annexed?
It was the Korean Empire.
Through the Japan-Korea Annexation, it became one with Japan.
An empire does not turn another empire into a colony.
This was a merger of empires.
Look at the English documents of the time.
In none of them is the word “colonization” used.
It is “annexation.”
The relatives of the Emperor were imperial family members, and the relatives of the Yi family became princely family members.
Below them, a peerage common to Japan and Korea was created.
The yangban also took titles such as baron, viscount, and count.
That is proof that it was a merger of empires.
At the time of the merger, Korea was truly an extremely poor country, so there were even princely family members who had difficulty maintaining appearances.
Therefore, Japan gave a budget to support the princely families.
There was even a period when that budget was larger than the budget given to Japan’s imperial family.
Colonial rule generally means subordinating the inhabitants of the colony and repeatedly exploiting and plundering them.
But Japan was different.
It treated the people of Korea as Japanese nationals.
It prepared infrastructure such as railways, schools, and dams, and spread practical reading and writing through education.
The colonial policies of Western countries and Japan’s rule were fundamentally different, and it is necessary to understand this firmly.
It was not only the Korean Peninsula.
There were also places where the standard of living rose remarkably and where Japan’s rule is still appreciated today.
These things were not what should be called colonial rule.
In the report of the advisory panel of experts, words such as colonization and colonial rule appear here and there, but did no one have this basic understanding?
It is a lack of study.
On that point, in the prime minister’s statement…the word “colony” is used mainly in reference to white countries.
I pay respect to the prime minister’s insight.