There is no space for a decent paper, so there is no reason to tell the truth. 
October 7, 2015 
This month’s issue of Sound Argument, a monthly magazine, is also full of truths entirely unknown to those who subscribe to Asahi or Mainichi and live only to watch TV Asahi or TBS news programs.
However, the price is 780 yen. 
On the other hand, Asahi fills about half of its limited space with advertisements similar to those found in sports newspapers, but the monthly fee is approximately 5,000 yen. 
The following is from p.178-p.187, from the work of Mr. Nangyu Abe, a researcher of Korean issues. 
Mr. Nangyu Abe was Born in 1939 in Fukuoka Prefecture. He graduated from Kogakuin University. He was a senior researcher at the Chemical Technology Research Institute of the former Ministry of International Trade and Industry, Agency of Industrial Science and Technology. After retiring in 2000, he served as Director of the Tsukuba Management Office of the Chemical Technology Strategy Promotion Organization until 2003. His major is mining treatment technology. His books include “Summary of the Tsukuba Research School,” and he co-authored “Military Industrialization of North Korea” and “Research on Postwar Japan-North Korea Relations.” Preparations are being made to establish the “Communist Trade Museum.” 
*The reader should realize that his efforts also 100% prove the correctness of my thesis. 
The emphasis in black, other than the title, is mine. 

World Heritage Sites Desecrated by Anti-Japanese People in China and South Korea. 
The past of residents in Japan is hidden by the delusional “forced abduction” theory. 
Why did the myth of forced abduction arise? 
People who crossed the Genkai Sea after the war 
Following Japanese military comfort women, “wartime conscription” has emerged as a historical issue between Japan and South Korea. 
This problem was once called “forced recruitment” and is remembered as “barbaric acts of imperial Japan.” 
As the actual situation has been clarified and the image of it as “barbaric” has been refuted, fewer people now refer to it as “forced recruitment,” and more people refer to it as “forced labor.” 
In any case, wartime conscription becomes a source of tension between Japan and South Korea because there is a deep-rooted memory of this theory that “forced recruitment = barbaric acts.” 
In 1968, at a snack bar in Shizuoka Prefecture, a second-generation Korean living in Japan, Kwon Hyi-ro, shot and killed two debt-collecting gang members and barricaded himself in an inn in the Sumata Gorge hot springs in the same prefecture. 
When Kwon demanded an apology from a current police officer who had made discriminatory remarks against South Koreans residing in Japan as a condition for the release of the hostages, the incident was widely covered by the media as a “problem of discrimination against Koreans.” Domestically, movement groups and people called intellectuals began supporting Kwon Hye-ro.
Even though Kwon Hye-ro killed the two men with a rifle, he was spared capital punishment at trial.   
The incident greatly impacted the subsequent Korean resident movement in Japan. 
The biggest one was the creation of the myth that “Korean residents in Japan have always been discriminated against, and that the root of that discrimination was “forced abduction” by Japan before the war.” 
It promotes the image that they were brought to Japan in the same way as black people who were brought to America as enslaved people from the African continent.  

Was the background of the Kwon Hye-ro incident really a “problem of discrimination”?
In general, it was said that Japanese people looked down on Koreans. Still, in postwar Japan, after the dissolution of the Empire of Japan (from now on referred to as the Empire), the US occupation forces (General Headquarters of the Allied Forces = GHQ) implemented a preferential policy for Koreans. They took it.
Giving preferential treatment to Koreans over the Japanese incited ethnic conflicts, used it as a bulwark against the Japanese’s opposition to the occupation policy, and tried to govern the military occupation smoothly. 　
It is a common practice in colonial management in Western countries, where they promote smooth governance by fostering ethnic conflicts.
This aggravated “inter-ethnic friction” encouraged Kim Hi-ro’s argument. 　
At the time of the dissolution of the Empire, approximately 1.6 million of the nearly 2 million Koreans living in Japan returned home.
As of the end of 1946, only approximately 400,000 Koreans were living in Japan.
This number increased to 600,000 in 1959, when the “Repatriation Movement” to North Korea began.
Of course, this is just a published number.
The GHQ’s policy of preferential treatment for Koreans, which encourages conflicts between ethnic groups, has stopped Koreans from returning to the Korean peninsula and even created a countercurrent. 　
The population can’t increase by 1.5 times in a short period.
During this period, approximately 60,000 people were arrested for smuggling.
It has been pointed out that there were three times as many smugglers out of the 60,000 people who were not arrested.
The number is approximately 200,000; subtracting 400,000 from 600,000, you get 200,000.
However, the significance of this is that “out of 600,000 Korean residents in Japan, 200,000 illegal immigrants” has not been much of a problem until now.

The fiction of “forced abduction” is acknowledged by the person who named it.
Because Koreans living in Japan have an entrenched image, they are people who have been forcibly taken away.
The impetus for this was the publication of Park Kyung-sik, a Korean historian residing in Japan, about the forced recruitment of Korean workers during the Pacific War (1962). 　
Regarding the term “forced recruitment” used here, Park was inspired by the publication of “Documents Concerning Investigation of Forced Recruitment of Chinese People” in the May 1960 issue of Iwanami Shoten’s magazine Sekai. He states that.
Shoji Yamada, a researcher of the massacre of Koreans at the time of the Great Kanto Earthquake, responded to this and pointed out that ‘forced recruitment’ was not a coined word by Park Kyung-sik but was borrowed from the previous term ‘forced recruitment of Chinese people.’ However, “there was no recognition of the difference between the forced recruitment from the occupied territories (China), which could rely only on physical violence, and the one from the colonies, which also made full use of ideological coercion such as imperialization education.” “Park Kyung-sik”) and criticized Park Kyung-sik’s borrowing. 　
Park Kyung-sik’s “On the forced recruitment of Korean workers during the Pacific War” was published by Chosun University.
Tal-su Kim, a resident Korean writer, used the term “forced recruitment” to refer to the physical coercion (accompanied by violence) of Chinese nationals brought to Japan and the voluntary travel of Koreans. 
Pointing to the superimposed dots, he concluded that it was a coined word by Park Kyung-sik.
On the other hand, Park Kyung-sik is said to have insisted to Yamada in his final years that “only physical restraints are not forcibly taken away” (Reminiscence Park Kyung-sik). 　
These words of Park Kyung-sik, who coined the term “forced recruitment” of Koreans, highlight that no Koreans came to Japan through physical violence.
If traveling voluntarily due to the “imperialization ideology” is “forced recruitment,” then Chongryon advocated that “North Korea is a paradise on earth.” 10 Tens of thousands of people become victims of “forced recruitment.” 　
Park Kyung-sik said that he was “not a Korean who was forcibly taken away,” but in 1965, he published “Records of Koreans forcibly Taken” (Miraisha).
Park Kyung-sik’s book is now widely accepted as having established “forced recruitment” in Japanese society.
By the way, where did the 200,000 illegal immigrants I mentioned earlier disappear? 　
At least, the existence of smugglers was widely known until the mid-1970s.
While 100,000 people crossed the sea in the movement to return to North Korea, the number of illegal immigrants increased. 　
Many Japanese now forget that many Koreans in Japan were smugglers.
In this process, there is the Kwon Hye-ro incident.
It can be said that it was because of Chongryon’s movement in response to Kwon Hye-ro’s and the incident’s claims that “Since Koreans in Japan have been discriminated against, their crimes should be reduced.”   That movement is Chongryon’s formation of the “Investigation Group for the Forced Recruitment of Koreans” to promote “clarification of the actual situation of forced recruitment, which is the “dark side” of modern history in Japan. This movement began in Hokkaido and Kyushu in 1973, and many research reports have been published with the cooperation of Japanese scholars obsessed with the redemptive view of history and citizen activists.   In Chongryon (published in 2005), commemorating the 50th anniversary of Chongryon’s formation, he began to emphasize “forced recruitment” in explaining “why Koreans live in Japan” (“Chongryon” ). Still, it is common knowledge that Chongryon’s executives also had smugglers. 

Is it acceptable to kill a “bad Japanese”? 　
In the Kwon Hye-ro incident, progressive intellectuals “shocked by Kwon Hye-ro’s complaint” began to take action.
The recently deceased philosopher Shunsuke Tsurumi, who said he wanted to be on the losing side, was one such person.
However, it was highly questionable whether a man who could kill someone with a rifle was on the “losing side.” 　
At the “Meeting to Think about Kwon Hye-ro,” Masato Ara, Shozo Inoue, Akihei Sugiura, Kanji Seki, Kenzo Nakajima, Wei Hatada, and Ichiro Hariu, who were regarded as progressive intellectuals at the time, participated. There is. 　
According to the record in the “Afterword” of “Kwon Hye-ro’s Legal Statement” by French literary scholar Michihiko Suzuki (Professor Emeritus of Dokkyo University) (Hyakuuni Shobo, 1970), he was the organizer of the Kwon Hye-ro trial committee. , Shinichiro Osawa, Hideki Kajimura, Hiroshi Kubo, Katsumi Sato, Minoru Satomi, Michihiko Suzuki, Osamu Mitsuhashi, and Setsuko Miyata.
I have met three of them, Hideki Kajimura, Katsumi Sato, and Setsuko Miyata, at the Japan-Korea Institute in Mejiro. 　
Tsunatsu Fukuda, Yuji Aida, Renzaburo Shibata, and others viewed the murder case committed by Kingiro with a harsh eye and criticized it.
At that time, only a few Japanese people commented critically about Kwon Hye-ro.
Fukuda and the other three were accused of not taking the Kwon Hye-ro case seriously, making fun of it and distorting it.
The following words symbolize the fundamental idea of defending Kwon Hye-ro’s murder case: 　
“I see, Kwon Hye-ro murdered two people, and you are told that murder is an absolute evil. So what about the actions of the Japanese who took the lives of countless Koreans? ?” (“Afterword” of “Kwon Hye-ro’s Legal Statement”) The “you” in this quotation probably refers to Tsunen Fukuda, Yuji Aida, Renzaburo Shibata, and others.
Suzuki expects ” you ” to answer, “That was before the war and the actions of the previous generation. There is no reason for me to be responsible for that.”. 　
“However, I don’t think you are entitled to that either. That’s because we are the ones who inherited and reproduced this gruesome history.”
Michihiko Suzuki was born in 1929, so he must have had memories of the aftermath of Japan’s defeat in the war and memories of Koreans being violent.
What Kwon Hye-ro denounced at Sumata Gorge was the discriminatory behavior of a police officer, saying, “You Koreans, don’t come to Japan and talk to me!” but this was a biased statement that was borne out from the police officer’s life. Those were the words.
These words also resonate with the life of Kwon Hye-ro, who was angry about this.
Before Kwon Hye-ro murdered two Japanese people and barricaded himself in Sumata Gorge, he was sent to a juvenile shelter for theft before the war. After the war, he repeatedly committed theft, fraud, and robbery, going back and forth between prison and Japanese society.
That’s probably why the police officer’s words were worth it.
On the other hand, the police officers who utter such words are living a life of cracking down on Koreans who behaved arrogantly right after the defeat from the standpoint of maintaining public order. 　
Didn’t the progressive intellectuals who supported Kwon Hye-ro feel “respect” for the police officers who confronted and protected Japan’s public order and the two Japanese people suddenly shot to death?
Is it okay for him to be killed because he is a member of an organized crime group that lent money to extort money? 　
One of the two people killed was not a gang member.