[cstaylor]

One variation on this theme would be a joint effort, perhaps with American assistance, to develop a short, succinct, jointly agreed upon accounting of South Korea-Japan relations in the 20th century in booklet format, in both Japanese and Korean, for distribution to schoolchildren in both nations as supplemental reading

Here's my contribution:

In the years between 1942 and 1945, America lost several hundred thousand young men and women freeing the Japanese from their own oppressive government. In the years following the war's conclusion, the American government stationed troops on the Japanese islands in accordance with the Occupation policy, and later with the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

In 1950, tens of thousands of American men and women paid the ultimate price to protect the (later ungrateful) South Korean people from their rapacious neighbors to the north. As the war never officially ended, and the North Koreans continue to develop a primitive nuclear capability to augment their impressive conventional force, the American government stations troops on the peninsula as a deterrent to future Chinese or North Korean intervention

At least the Koreans and the Japanese would agree on rejecting this proposal from their textbooks.

[Crispy]

The most ambitious proposal would be a joint committee to develop an approved history for both countries

Approved history, eh? I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[FG Lurker]

Japan-ROK history study making slow progress
Daily Yomiuri, June 3, 2005

A report released Wednesday by a committee of Japanese and South Korean historians, tasked with conducting a joint study of the historical relationship between their countries, highlights the difficulties for the two countries to share an understanding of history.

In discussing modern history at a subcommittee meeting, the two sides argued over the legitimacy of a treaty concerning Japan's annexation of the Korean Peninsula in 1910.

The Japanese side asserted that colonization was unjust from the current viewpoint, but the treaty was legally signed at that time and therefore it could not be said to be invalid.

In response, the South Korean side argued that the treaty was signed under the threat of violence by the Japanese, and it was invalid from the beginning.

(Full Story)

Yep, this is certainly going to move along at lightning speed!