This essay argues that Syngman Rhee’s actions, including the creation of the Takeshima dispute, exploited U.S. occupation policy.
It examines the fabrication of the comfort women narrative, prolonged anti-Japanese education, and the structural factors that trapped Japan politically in the postwar order.

2016-03-27
When the Asahi Shimbun fabricated the comfort women issue and spread it worldwide, it is now clearly established as fact that the paper had Yoshimi Yoshiaki, then a professor at Chuo University, deliberately write tendentious papers in order to extract the Kono Statement and force Kiichi Miyazawa—who had been planning a visit to South Korea—to apologize eight times while in that country.
As already noted, the Asahi’s apology press conference on the comfort women issue in August two years ago was merely superficial, and nothing of substance changed, as demonstrated by TV Asahi’s Hōdō Station and its representative anchor, Ichiro Furutachi.
Their childish and malicious conduct is, quite literally, the very embodiment of what the words traitor and national betrayer signify.
Meanwhile, in the morning edition of the following day, March 25, the Sankei Shimbun carried the following facts on its front page.
It goes without saying that the Asahi Shimbun—long manipulated by spokesmen for South Korea or by figures at home and abroad connected to the South Korean government or the CIA—reported none of these inconvenient truths for South Korea.
I have written many times that it was Syngman Rhee, one of the lowest-grade dictators in history, who created the Takeshima issue, and here again I was reminded that the discovery I have continued to write about is indeed of great significance.
Syngman Rhee was able to do such things by exploiting U.S. policy at the time—that is, the policy of the occupying forces.
In other words, Japan was turned into a “political prisoner” in the international community in order to conceal America’s original sin.
A villain of rare caliber even by historical standards, Syngman Rhee took advantage of this situation.
Even so, the anti-Japanese education he initiated—nothing less than Nazism itself—has continued for seventy years since the war.
As a result, almost all young people in South Korea raised under this education are completely unaware that these were Rhee’s misdeeds, and they call Takeshima “Dokdo,” believing it to be their own territory.
What is totalitarianism?
What is Nazi-style education?
They are proving it to the world through their own lived example.
That Kang Sang-jung—who does not use a Japanese name, calls himself a scholar under a Korean name—continues in the twenty-first century to interfere in Japan’s policies and politics without correcting these abnormalities, and that newspapers and television networks continue to give him a platform, clearly places them within the scope of the terms traitor and national betrayer, a point that requires no further commentary.
Indeed, it would be more accurate to assume that within these groups are operatives of the South Korean government or the CIA.
They have relentlessly exploited the remnants of leftist ideology and pseudo-moralism that these people hold.
The Sankei Shimbun article will be introduced in the next chapter.