I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
![日韓併合の目的と実益]()
What are the purposes and practical benefits of the annexation of Japan and Korea? Japanese security perspective at the time
There are two main reasons why Japan annexed the Korean Peninsula. The reason that South Korea claims that it is for exploitation is completely untrue because the management of the Korean Peninsula was in the red. In other words, the amount of Japanese tax money that was spent on the Korean Peninsula was probably greater. Would you call this exploitation? Japan annexed the Korean Peninsula primarily for the purpose of defending Russia and building infrastructure from Manchuria to Busan.
It is clear that Russia's purpose is to use the Trans-Siberian Railway to colonize the Korean Peninsula and Manchuria, and in reality Russia is acquiring interests in northeastern Asia one after another. The reason why Japan carried out the Triple Intervention on the Liaodong Peninsula, which it acquired after the Sino-Japanese War, was because it did not want to hand over its Manchurian interests and because it did not want Japan to control the ports and shipping routes on the Liaodong Peninsula. The Baltic Fleet is not needed at all to colonize the continent or the Korean peninsula. The places you go by boat are places that can only be reached by boat. It's Japan, and there's another one. It's Taiwan. In other words, Russia was targeting the Japanese archipelago, the Korean Peninsula, and the Manchuria region, including Taiwan, which Japan had acquired in the Sino-Japanese War.
In 1891, Tsar Alexander III of Russia issued a royal order to build a railway that would penetrate all of Russia, and it became clear that it was not just a railway construction, but that the Trans-Siberian Railway could be constructed from both the start and end points. It was also clear that Vladivostok, which was just a stone's throw away from the Korean peninsula, would be connected to the Russian capital. The Baltic Fleet is coming there. Japan succeeded in destroying the Baltic Fleet off the coast of Tsushima, the narrowest sea area, but what would happen if it were to pass through? If Russia acquires the Korean Peninsula one after another and builds a military port in Busan, the Japanese archipelago will be just a stone's throw away. In this form, the Korean Peninsula would have surrounded the Japanese archipelago in a circular shape, and Japan would have had no chance against Russia, which had great national power.
With the defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, the Romanov dynasty lost power, and Lenin took advantage of this to launch the Russian Revolution during World War I. This was in 1917, 12 years after the Russo-Japanese War. Still, Japan will have to be wary of the possibility that Russia will rebuild its system and send a fleet. If the Korean Peninsula becomes Japan due to the annexation of Japan and South Korea, the Russian fleet passing through the Sea of Japan will be caught in a pincer attack all the way to Vladivostok, and the situation in the Sea of Japan will be completely advantageous to Japan. Masu. In other words, Japan surrounded the Sea of Japan.
As a result of the Russo-Japanese War, Japan acquired the railway between Harbin and Port Arthur, which later became the South Manchurian Railway, under the Treaty of Portsmouth. And Russia's interests in Manchuria were largely rejected.
After Korea became an independent nation after the Sino-Japanese War, Japan obtained the right to build a railway on the Korean Peninsula, and built a railway across the peninsula to Busan. After the Russo-Japanese War, the Harbin-Lushun railway obtained in Manchuria was expanded and connected to the railway on the Korean Peninsula. In other words, Japan built a huge infrastructure that connects the Manchurian region to Busan, which is just a stone's throw from Japan. This will ensure infrastructure by sea and land from Dalian and by rail. In other words, victory in the Russo-Japanese War meant that the Sea of Japan was surrounded in both name and reality, making it an exclusive maritime area, and connecting it with southern Manchuria by railway. will be sold to Manchukuo. In other words, Japan obtained the Korean Peninsula and Manchuria, which Russia had been trying to obtain.
This was a result of Japan's large expansion from the perspective of Japan's security against Russia, and in the past there was a critical situation in which Tsushima might become the line of defense, but now the line of defense is now more than 1000 km away. This means that it has also moved northward.
At that time, the Korean peninsula was in constant political instability and conflict, and the country's finances were in a state of collapse as it had failed to issue its own currency. Diplomatically, Japan has sold various interests to Russia due to financial issues, and the fact that the Korean Peninsula is in doubt from the perspective of Japan's security.
Japan's security was also in doubt. This was due to the size of Russia's national power at the time, and if the Russian fleet were to succeed in moving north through the Sea of Japan, Japan would be in a hopeless situation.
Conversely, by placing Manchuria and the Korean Peninsula under control, Japan's security became rock solid. For this reason, Russia was geopolitically inferior to Japan, and even when World War II broke out, the Soviet Union signed a Japan-Soviet Nonaggression Pact. If Japan were to invade the Far East while fighting the Nazis in Europe, Russia would be left alone. In this sense, one of the reasons why the management of the Korean Peninsula was in the red is that it required various investments such as building railways and developing infrastructure from Manchuria to Japan. The administration of the Korean Peninsula was financially in the red, but what if we considered it in conjunction with Manchuria?
Let's compare it with the longitudinal railway under Taiwan's rule. Even if you look at it this way, the railways on the Korean Peninsula cover more areas. This may be due to the difference in population of the Korean peninsula, which had a population of 13.13 million compared to 2.6 million at the beginning of Taiwan's rule, and the fact that the central part of Taiwan is mountainous. While the railway was completed, it seems that the Korean peninsula had a very different role as a railway that ran from Manchuria to Japan. To this day, Korean railways still use the Korean Government-General's Office railway line that was built at this time. Regarding Taiwan, it is also based on the Taiwan Governor-General Railway.
North Korea actually still uses this line, and since the South Manchurian Railway was converted to China, it naturally connects to China. When Kim Jong-un visits China, he travels by train, but he is actually using the benefits of the Korean Government-General's Office Railway.
In today's world, it is completely understandable to think that the annexation of Japan and Korea was a failure. Perhaps this is because South Korea is a country that has experienced many frustrating things for Japan, such as the occupation of Takeshima and the subsequent anti-Japanese movements. If you look at history, there is no doubt that this was caused by the annexation of Japan and Korea. On the other hand, the Manchurian region was rich in resources such as coal, oil, iron, and aluminum, and was used to produce agricultural fertilizers and machine tools. If Russia were to cut off the land route to transport this to Japan, Japan would end up there.
Speaking of what Japan failed at, it was actually in the post-war period. The restoration of diplomatic relations in 1965 was based on the conclus
![茨城県五浦海岸沖に世]()
Possibility of the world's largest oil field off the coast of Izura, Ibaraki Prefecture - Hope for investigation and mining including security.
It is estimated that there is a huge oil field off the coast of Izura in Ibaraki Prefecture. A slag called carbonate concrete was formed by the bond between calcium and carbon, and the origin of carbon was unclear by research teams at Ibaraki University and Hokkaido University who found that it was natural gas. From the area of ??the reef, the total amount of natural gas ejected from the seabed is estimated, and the fact that natural gas is emitted means that there is a high possibility that oil resources are buried under it. If oil resources are discovered, they will be one of the largest in the world.
There seems to be an opinion that it is cheaper to buy oil from abroad as before because it takes a lot of time and cost from investigation to mining, but as a problem including security before the economic point of view. I want you to proceed with the investigation. In the first place, QUAD is the area where oil tankers pass from the Middle East, and China is trying to control it, and its original purpose is to prevent those movements.
What if oil comes out in Japan? Will the Spratly Islands issue and the Taiwan Strait issue become less important to Japan? No, it wouldn't be. China is cleverly developing oil resource diplomacy, which is a card of further threat to Asian countries. Achieving a free and open Indo-Pacific by QUAD could sell Japanese oil to Asian countries and reduce China's influence on the Spratly Islands relatively. I would like the country to discuss the overall benefits of having resources, not just the perspective of which is cheaper.
![日本で可能な二大政党]()
The two - party system that is possible in Japan would be better if the Liberal Democratic Party was split into two - the opposition party would not become the ruling party.
Democratic government described as a nightmare
How much power should be given to the opposition party
What should a two-party system look like?
Republican policies and Democratic policies
Two-party system with the ability to govern
In the run-up to the House of Councilors election, when considering a two-party system that is possible in Japan, the media immediately talks about the need to develop an opposition party to compete with the Liberal Democratic Party, but based on painful experience under the previous Democratic Party administration, Japanese people are fed up with that story. Former Prime Minister Abe described the Democratic Party of Japan as a "nightmare government."
The Democratic Party of Japan, which gave up power after three years, subsequently fell apart and fell apart, but Japanese voters still had high expectations for the party, even for a certain period of time, when it came to the surprise of a party that split into pieces due to divisions among its ranks. He was appalled and regretted being appointed to the national government. So what is the current political party support rate? The opposition party only has an approval rating of around 5% at best. (Reference: Public opinion poll | Nippon Television)
I even wonder how much time we need to spend in the Diet against such an opposition party in the name of democracy. They were elected in their constituencies, but as a political party they can hardly be considered to represent the people.
Despite this, they do whatever they want under the pretext of monitoring the ruling party, and their activities only end up stalling the Diet by asking questions no different from those of weekly magazine reporters. .
Is it really possible to have a two-party system in Japan? There is an opinion that it is not true democracy if there is no change of government, and that is probably correct. However, the most serious problem is not that there is no other political party in Japan capable of managing the government other than the Liberal Democratic Party. So when will the opposition party grow? This year marks 77 years since the end of the war.
I've been saying for some time that it would be a good idea to split the Liberal Democratic Party into two, but most people give me strange looks. But guess what? The Liberal Democratic Party has a wide range of swings from left to right, which means it is a party with a wide range of defense. That is why it continued to be the ruling party for a long time after the war.
And in the last Liberal Democratic Party presidential election for Reps. Kishida, Takaichi, Kono, and Noda, a section of the public did not miss that this structure was clearly appearing and disappearing, but the media did not report on this structure.
Former Prime Minister Abe developed Abenomics in an effort to ease regulations, lower corporate taxes, improve the competitiveness of companies, raise gross output, increase employment, and induce inflation. Using the United States as an example, the policy will likely be more Republican.
Prime Minister Kishida has said that he would energize the middle class, and has advocated for growth rather than distribution, which is a rather left-wing position, which in American terms could be called a Democratic Party-like position.
In other words, this would be fine. The Liberal Democratic Party could be divided into two major parties, the right and the left, and the people could decide which policy is needed now, taking into account the domestic situation at the time, and then change the government. This is a healthy two-party system. What is currently taking place as a competition between factions within the Liberal Democratic Party will be exposed to the vote of the people by separating it into a political party..
Even though the Liberal Democratic Party already covers a wide range of policies from both the right and the left, opposition parties that stray outside of that range are often talking about policies that are not realistic in the first place. We have experienced this under the Democratic Party administration. What became strange was that they tried to leave the matter to the opposition party under the pretext of a two-party system. The problem is that the opposition parties have a modest number of seats.
The government cannot be entrusted to any party other than those that have the ability to become the governing party. No matter what ideals or ideologies, if they are imperfect planes, they will crash.
It may no longer be true that opposition parties support a healthy democracy. What is needed is a political party with the ability to take charge of the government and be responsible.
![統一教会問題は政教分]()
Is the Unification Church issue a problem of separation of church and state? - Abnormal public opinion that condemns people just by saying hello.
The problem started with the murder of the former prime minister
There is no law that says no to politicians getting involved in religion
What are the benefits of specific religions from the country
Incoherent media tone
The issue of the Unification Church has become somewhat incomprehensible in Japan. It is said that the mother of the person responsible for the incident in which former Prime Minister Abe was shot and killed was a member of the Unification Church, and that her past misfortunes related to this were the motive behind the incident. Former Prime Minister Abe reportedly gave a speech at the Unification Church. However, this is still just a statement before the trial. I don't even know if that's the real motive.
Politicians are often asked to attend and give speeches at meetings of various organizations. It can also be said that this is part of political activity. Some people refer to the constitutional principle of separation of church and state, but when interpreted as a law that prohibits the state from providing benefits to specific religious groups, it can be interpreted as a law that prohibits individual politicians from drinking alcohol, regardless of which religious group they greet at. It's not something I already know.
Facilitation by the state refers to the provision of advantageous systems and benefits to specific religious groups by law. Even if they say hello at the Unification Church, they will probably also visit Yasukuni Shrine, and if the Dalai Lama of Tibetan Buddhism visits Japan, will the Japanese Prime Minister meet him? He will probably meet the Pope when he visits Japan. Does this violate the principle of separation of church and state? We just met.
The problem with the Unification Church is simply a question of how to regulate large donations to religious organizations that violate public order and morals, as well as forced requests, and is far from an issue of the separation of church and state.
