The Truth about the Question of “Comfort Women” by Ogata Yoshiaki

http://hassin.org/01/literature/213
The Truth about the Question of “Comfort Women”

Ogata Yoshiaki

1. The True Image of the “Comfort Women”

(1) “Comfort Women” as licensed prostitutes
On Sept. 13, 2006, based upon the forceful actions of Korean lobbyists and others, the United States House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Relations proposed H.R. 759 for House consideration, which condemns Japan on the issue of the so-called comfort women.
The Resolution assertions, claiming “[T]he Government of Japan … from the 1930s through the duration of World War II, organized the subjugation and kidnapping, for the sole purpose of sexual servitude, of young women, who became known to the world as ‘comfort women,’” are completely at odds with the historical truth. The Resolution is nothing more than political propaganda.
The truth of the “comfort women” system is that it was simply legalized prostitution; the “comfort women” were “professionals.” Their status, in fact, was that of commercial prostitutes who were engaged in business, and the women were thus were called “comfort women.” This point is made clear in official records of the United States Army.

(2) The Life of The “Comfort Women” as Seen in U.S. Army Records
In official documents of the U.S. Army’s Psychological Warfare Team from 1944, one can find recorded interviews of 20 Korean “comfort women,” occupants of a brothel in Myitkyina, in northern Burma. According to their accounts, these “comfort women,” for economic reasons, had been sold by their own parents to brokers to become prostitutes. Their compensation was between 300 and 1,000 yen - at a time when the monthly pay of a non-commissioned officer in the Japanese Army was approximately 30 yen.
According to the document, the women were keeping between 50 to 60 percent of their fees, and their monthly income was dozens of times higher than that of servicemen. When they had free time, they would enjoy themselves by playing sports or going on picnics with the soldiers. They also participated in other recreation and went to dinner parties. They had gramophones, and they were allowed to go into town to shop.
They also had the right to refuse customers. If a soldier was extremely drunk and unruly, for example, the women could turn him away - and they frequently did so. The investigation showed that these women were in good physical condition.
The details are in UNITED STATES OFFICE OF WAR INFORMATION, Psychological Warfare Team, Attached to the U.S. Army Forces India-Burma Theater APO 689.
In the report, “comfort women” are explicitly declared to be “prostitutes.” There are records detailing that some of the brokers committed illegal acts in recruiting comfort women, but there were absolutely no identified instances of “kidnapping” or “rounding up women” by the Japanese authorities or army.
Additionally, in 1945, in depositions of three Korean civilians in the employment of the Japanese Army, they stated “In the battle zones of the Pacific War, the Korean comfort women we met were all either volunteers, or women who had been sold by their parents. If any of the women had been victims of coercion, all Koreans, young and old, would have risen up in rage, regardless of whatever retaliation, and killed the Japanese.” This is taken from “Composite Report Three Korean Civilians List No. 78,” dated 28 March, 1945, “Special Questions on Koreans” (U.S. National Archives).

(3) Wages of “Comfort Women”
According to the official reports of the U.S. Army noted above, the monthly take of the women was approximately 1,500 yen, and they kept between 40 to 50 percent of this. In other words, their “take home” income was an extremely high wage of 750 yen per month.
Here is one illustration to support this. A Korean comfort woman named Moon Ok-ju, who worked in Burma during the period between June of 1943 and September of 1945, recorded total savings of 26,145 yen in deposit at the military post office. (Note: the Japanese Post Office conducts banking functions.) In evidence of this, she went to the Shimonoseki Post Office to withdraw the funds in 1992, and her original ledger was discovered and confirmed. As she had lost her account book, she was unable to withdraw the money. At any rate, over a period of two years and three months, she had accumulated an incredible savings of 26,000 yen -- her monthly take-home would have been nearly 1,000 yen.
Incidentally, the monthly pay of a Japanese Army private at the time was 7 yen 50 sen; a sergeant made 30 yen. These women were making per month between 100 to 250 times what soldiers were.

(4) The Korean Government Also Saw No Problem
As made clear by the previously indicated facts, the “comfort woman” system was purely an institution of legalized prostitution. It was nothing more than a part of the commercial prostitution industry that existed in the Japanese mainland as well as the Korean peninsula and in various other places. Therefore, for a long time after the independence of Korea, the existence of “comfort women” never arose as a political problem. This was because the people who knew the truth recognized that there could not have been an issue with “comfort women.” At the time, it was made common sense that there would be military brothels in army garrisons operating as commercial prostitution establishments, and that there were prostitutes who had been sold into such service by their own parents was a fact known to everyone. Also, at that time, there were no such myths that the army took women by force and made them into prostitutes.
In actuality, with the rehabilitation of diplomatic relations between Japan and Korea that took place over 14 years, beginning in 1952, the Korean government didn’t even once bring up the issue of “comfort women”. Even since then, however, the Korean government has continued adopting an anti-Japanese national policy. The Koreans incessantly found fault with the “Great Japanese Empire’s” rule of Korea even during on-going diplomatic negotiations to improve relations. Despite their unyielding demands for reparations, for 14 years the Korean government never once made a reference to “comfort women.”

2. The Background of the Myths of Coercion and Kidnapping
As previously presented, the “comfort women” system was simply legal, commercial prostitution. Moreover, it had long been understood to have been so. It was in 1980 that terms such as “kidnapping,” “coercion,” and “sexual servitude” first came to be associated with comfort women, and, thus, became a political problem.
The background in which this hollow myth arose, some 40 years after the end of the war, began with an event that will be introduced shortly. First, though, if one is to accurately comprehend what is meant by “comfort woman,” one must know what gave rise to this myth.

(1) The “Confessions” of a Certain Storyteller
In 1983, a Japanese man living in Shimonoseki city in Yamaguchi prefecture, by the name of Yoshida Seiji, published a book called My War Crimes: Coerced Taking of Koreans. In this book, he confessed that in 1943, under military orders, on Cheju Island (in Korea) he went with 10 military men in two trucks on a “slave hunt,” to find and take away young girls and mothers with babies.
The truth is that Yoshida is a master storyteller. There is not a kernel of truth in his confession. In the several years before his lie was exposed, he deceived many people with this clever charade and made a great deal of money on royalties and speaking fees. Afterward, it was the Koreans, ironically, who exposed Yoshida’s lies.
In 1989, Yoshida’s book was translated and published in Korea. A female Korean reporter named Heo Young-seon with the Cheju Newspaper read his book. When she went to the actual place on Cheju Island to investigate his account, there was nothing that corresponded with reality. Local residents unanimously replied with comments such as, “We have lived here since that time, and we know nothing of this,” and “There aren’t more than 250 households in this village, so if even only 15 people had been taken it would have been a big thing, but nothing of the sort happened.” In addition, a local Cheju historian by the name of Kim Bong-ok conducted his own long-term follow-up survey, and as result he declared that there was no validity to Yoshida’s testimony. He dismissed Yoshida’s book, declaring, “Writing such drivel and thereby trying to profit, this shows the fruit of the immoral commercial spirit of the Japanese.” The investigation and evidence were all presented in an article refuting Yoshida’s claims in the August 14, 1989 edition of the Cheju Newspaper.
The Cheju Newspaper, however, is a small, local newspaper with a very limited circulation, so this article did not receive very much notice. However, on the Korean mainland, with the publication of Yoshida’s translated testimony, the image that “a comfort woman” equaled “a woman taken and coerced into sexual servitude” spread widely. Thus disseminated, this mythic image has been of great use for the Korean leadership to play as a convenient political card. The atrocious image of the Japanese military whipping Korean women and taking them away has been popularly used in movies, television dramas, magazines, and newspapers. The result is that this image has found its way into textbooks. It is taken as historical fact, although it is totally baseless.

(2) Anti-Japanese Groups Making it a Political Problem
The people who have been pressing forward, based on Yoshida’s confession and so forth, making a political issue of the “comfort woman question” for Korea within Japan, are anti-Japanese civil-libertarian activist groups. They have gone so far as to go “plaintiff hunting” in Korea, looking for Koreans who will sue the Japanese government for apologies and compensation.
Those seeking an erstwhile comfort-woman and hunting for potential plaintiffs began cooperating with groups like the Korean Association of Victims and Families of War Dead during the Pacific War in November of 1989. In December of 1991, they found three former comfort women and brought suit against the Japanese government in Tokyo District Court, seeking apologies and reparations. Their chief counsel was the anti-Japanese human rights activist and lawyer Takagi Ken’ichi, who had enthusiastically handled the organizing of the plaintiffs.

(3) The Made-up Victims
In August 11, 1991, the Asahi Newspaper, one of Japan’s leading dailies, introduced readers to a woman named Kim Hak-sun. It was reported that she was a former Korean army comfort woman who had been taken by force to the battle field in the name of the Women’s Volunteer Corps and then forced into prostitution to service the Japanese military. This former comfort woman would have to have only been 17 years old when she was taken away by the Japanese Army.
Only three days later, however, on August 14, she gave an interview to a newspaper in Seoul, where she confessed the truth, “I was sold by my mother to a barrel maker, and after that I was sent by my ‘foster father’ to a military brothel.” Moreover, in December of the same year, when she sued the Japanese government for the right to demand damages, she honestly admitted in her suit that she had been a gi-saeng at the age of 14. “Gi-saeng” is a term that has been used since ancient times in Korea to indicate a woman involved in the providing of sexual services, but the lawyers who put together her case overlooked that meaning at first.
The Asahi article made no mention that she had been sold by her mother - only that she had been taken to the battlefield under the designation as a Woman Volunteer. The journalist who wrote the article, Uemura Takashi, is fluent in Korean, so he had to have known what being sold to a gi-saeng house meant. What’s more, he later joined with Kim Hak-sun, and became the adoptive son-in-law of the managing director of the board Yang Sun-im, man who had a leadership position in the Korean Association of Victims and Families of War Dead during the Pacific War. Thus, a member of the plaintiff’s family wrote an article that was at odds with the truth.
Upon realizing their mistake after the commencement of the trial, the defense counsel abetted Kim, modifying their assertion to “she was forcibly taken away by the military.” This shows a straightforward example of just how baseless and aberrant it is to claim that at that time there was a Japanese domestic campaign to round up and take away comfort women.

(4) The Secret Maneuvering of the Asahi Newspaper
In December of 1991, the former comfort women, with the instigation of groups with political aims, presented their suit to the Tokyo District Court demanding from the Japanese government apologies and reparations. Thereupon, Japan, too, was suddenly taken up by the problem of the “army comfort women.”
The timing was perfect for Japanese Prime Minister Miyazawa Kiichi’s anticipated visit to Korea in January, 1992. There were concerns over plans for even more anti-Japanese leverage just before Miyazawa’s Korean visit.
The Asahi Newspaper, known for its leftist leanings, published an article with the headlines “Documents Indicating Military Involvement in Brothels” and “Government’s Opinion Sways,” above the fold on the front page of the January 11, 1992 morning edition. At first glance, the article reads as if to say there was definitive evidence that the Japanese Army took women away by force.
However, the article is entirely misleading. The materials reported as “documents indicating military involvement” were in fact documents that concerned the army’s orders to crack down on corrupt brokers. If one reads the originals, the applicable document was an official order stating, “One element of the brokers, acting as middlemen for comfort women, is recruiting with techniques resembling kidnapping as this would affect the dignity of the military, you are ordered to rigidly supervise the dealers you select [to work with].” That is, the documents are totally useless as evidence that indicate that the Japanese Army was “taking women away by force.” Today, that article, which was politically loaded with the intention of ensnaring Miyazawa (who on the eve of his trip held back from going to Korea), has been characterized as being nothing but smoke and mirrors.
Verification such as shown here took place however shortly after all of this transpired. Miyazawa, who had no time to prepare, had to go to Korea without being informed of the truth. During his trip in Korea, Miyazawa was severely bashed, receiving abuse not just from Koreans, but also from Communist forces, anti-nationalist and left-wing forces back in Japan. He was not given the time or materials to refute the charges.
Lacking nerve, Miyazawa betrayed the Japanese people and failed to protect his own cabinet. As a political compromise, he issued an apology -- without verifying any of the facts. By the time he returned to Japan and investigated the article’s veracity and learned the truth, it was already too late.

3. The So-called Kono Statement
People blaming Japan for the comfort woman issue will from time to time cite the so-called Kono Statement and claim that it asserts that the Japanese government officially recognized the forcible taking away of women to be made into comfort women - but this is a mistake.
If one truly understands the contents and particulars of the Kono Statement, one realizes that it simply embodies diplomatic niceties; it is nothing more than simple lip service.

(1) The Strong Demands of the Korean Government
The so-called Kono Statement was the commentary released by then-Chief Cabinet Secretary Kono Yohei, based on strong demands by the Korean government.
In 1993, Japan and Korea were embroiled in difficult diplomatic negotiations. Korean president Kim Young-sam, due to consideration of domestic opinion, persisted on the issue of the comfort women, strongly insisting that the Japanese government acknowledge that the recruitment of “comfort women” had been nothing short of compulsion. Korean public opinion, hardened by long years of anti-Japanese propaganda, was not about to accept that, in fact, the comfort women were actually legal, commercialized prostitutes.
On the Koreans’ part, as evidence to the “forcible taking away of women” they pointed to 16 former comfort women. If one undertakes to comprehend the actual situation, one finds that most cases are of women who have sold themselves into service, without a shred of evidence of “compulsion.” Nevertheless, from the Koreans there has been a persistent demand that Japan acknowledge that these women were coerced, thus there has been no progress in negotiations.

(2) The Kono Statement as the Fruit of Compromise
When negotiations were on the verge of breaking down due to Korean obstinacy, a compromise plan was suggested by the Koreans. If Japan would admit that there had been some form of “compulsion,” the Korean government would never again bring up the question of comfort women as a diplomatic issue, and they would not make a case for monetary compensation. For the politicians and foreign ministry officials who wanted to bring the negotiations to a conclusion, it was a tempting offer. In the end, they came to an easy-going compromise and brought the negotiations to a conclusion, acknowledging “compulsion” in a subdued tone and round-about manner.

(3) An Expression that Invites Misunderstanding
In the so-called Kono Statement, there was no concession that the Japanese government or military had direct involvement in the coercion or forced taking of comfort women. This is because, as it has been pointed out, not a shred of actual truth has been found that any one was forcibly taken. Expressions adopted to bring about an understanding of the Korean position were as follows:

(a) The recruitment of comfort women by brokers was at times unlawfully performed, and some women were forced to go along by them,

(b) There are examples of the authorities being involved in the recruitment activities of some of these brokers, and

(c) The living conditions of comfort women were not always satisfactory; there were also some sad cases.

To be certain, if one reads these circumlocutions literally, it is the responsibility of the country that controls the merchants as well as the entire system to manage affairs, and the system of licensed prostitution was generally tragic, but if the Koreans keep their promise never to bring up the issue of comfort women again, this should not become a problem.
From the start, however, the Korean government reneged on that promise. They took the Kono Statement and held it up as evidence that the Japanese government admitted to the coerced taking of women, and that they are using it as a diplomatic card to their heart’s content.


4. The Credibility of the “Collected Testimonies”

Among items often taken as evidence for the forced taking of women is the “Collected Testimonies” of former comfort women, which has been compiled by the South Korean government. This is the record of authentic enquiries and interviews produced by the “Volunteer Corps Research Society” project, in which famed Seoul University historian Professor An Pyongjik played a central role.
First, researchers determined if the substance of the testimonies was clearly fact. Next, self-contradicting cases were excluded. According to the “Collected Testimonies,” of the 40-plus cases investigated, what remained were 19 cases. In other words, even though this is an investigation by those who would charge the Japanese government with crimes, the testimony of over half of the more than 40 people investigated was deemed to have been obviously improper.
At any rate, there were only four of the 19 former comfort women cases appearing in the “Collected Testimonies” who made claims that they were forcibly taken away. Two of the four asserted that they “worked as a comfort woman” in areas where there could not have been comfort woman facilities, so their credibility cannot be considered as anything but highly unreliable. Of the other two, one was the afore-mentioned Kim Hak-sun, and the other was Moon Ok-ju (introduced previously as the woman who earned 26,000 yen in two years and three months). Given all this, the fictitious nature of the testimonies becomes apparent.
Two women claiming that they were forcibly taken away in these “Collected Testimonies” were the afore-mentioned pair who brought suit against the Japanese government, and who in their legal petition admitted that they had sold themselves into prostitution to become comfort women. Even though the “Collected Testimonies” is a document bearing the imprimatur of the South Korean government, there is simply not enough reliability in it.

5. The Main Source of the Myth that Comfort Women were Forcibly Taken

(1) The origin of the myth that “comfort women” = “women forcibly taken off to sexual enslavement” is due to the previously mentioned confession of Yoshida Seiji, the Asahi Newspaper, and information manipulated by other left-leaning forces - and the posture of the Japanese government, which seems to lack any procedure in responding to the accusations.
As previously mentioned, there is at present no disputing that Yoshida’s “confession” is a total fabrication, but to this day the Asahi Newspaper, which has claimed it was factual, has yet to publish an article correcting the account. For that reason, foreign researchers and politicians in countries where these matters are not germane should refrain from citing Yoshida’s confession as evidence for the coerced taking of women.
Furthermore, the Asahi Newspaper deliberately concealed the fact that comfort women were simple cases of women selling themselves, rather reporting that they were taken away and forced into service with the Volunteer Corps. The Asahi has yet to issue either a correction or apology. On the contrary - to gloss over their falsehood, they developed a novel theory. This is a concept they call “a broader application of the nature of forced taking.” This “broader application” can include anvthing that went against the voluntary intentions of the people in question, and would, therefore, encompass even reasons unrelated to the forced taking away of women.
Thus, according to their reasoning, it was entirely the fault of the Japanese Army “forcibly taking them away” into sexual servitude - regardless of whether it was the case in which daughters were sold by their parents for money in order to survive, or the case where women were deceived by vile brokers and sold to brothels. Most of the people who used the Asahi Newspaper report that comfort women were forcibly taken away as the basis for their beliefs simply do not know these facts.

(2) Given this situation, the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs totally lacks any policies to deal with the problem. Quite the opposite - they are continuing with their foundationless political compromises with the South Korean government, virtually acknowledging “the kidnapping of women” (as in the Kono Statement) thereby only serving to further spur the chaos. Japanese diplomacy has to be condemned for its incompetence on this point. To begin with, though, the Kono Statement was founded on the forceful demands of the South Korean government; and this comment, which was issued by the Japanese with concern for the honor of surviving former comfort women, was nothing more than a political show intended to let the Korean delegation take credit for a success.
Kono, intending this to be merely a diplomatic issue for later disposition, believed the Korean government’s promise that this would not be used as a “political card,” and so he complied with their demand. The Koreans quickly broke the promise, and though having said they wouldn’t bring it up again, raised the issue throughout the world, beginning with America and the United Nations. They played the top-level Kono Statement as a political card to blame Japan. It seems one should blame the Korean government for their display of dishonesty.

6. The United Nations’ Resolution Critical of Japan

In February of 1996, the “Coomaraswamy Report,” a recommendation to the Japan government by U.N. special rapporteur Radhika Coomaraswamy concerning the comfort women issue, was submitted to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The parts touching on all the facts of the case within this report were all pulled from the popular work The Comfort Women, published in 1995 by Australian journalist George Hicks. Hicks, who speaks no Korean, asked Prof. Takahashi of Tokyo University to introduce him to a Korean woman living in Japan named “Yumi Lee.” Lee collected data from Japanese left-wing activists, and Hicks wrote the book from this material which she had translated into English. Hicks himself admitted that he relied on 80 percent of the material in the book from Lee, so it is clear that most of his sources of information were Japanese left-wing activists. As a result,Hick’s book is not one based on historical fact but is merely a run-down of political propaganda. As the Coomaraswamy Report uncritically culled information from Hicks’ book, it is full of fundamental errors of fact and distortions and its content is thus beyond redemption. As a typical item, there is an episode where the prefectural governor of Nagasaki rounded up Korean women to be transported “under orders of the Japanese military authorities,” but it is clear that this story would require an impossible violation of proper chains of command. (This story is a total fabrication: there is no one who can assert the veracity of such a claim.)
Moreover, the book says, “The Japanese military followed measures to hunt down women with violence, overt coercion, and even the slaughter of family members who were trying to protect their daughters from being kidnapped.” The basis for this assertion, however, was Yoshida Seiji’s book, My War Crimes: Coerced Taking of Koreans. As previously mentioned, the result of Koreans’ own investigations in 1989 into Yoshida’s book was a total repudiation of it. This fact hints that the book was written without any proper investigation being conducted - that the conclusion came first, and then the data.
Incidentally, it is surprisingly not well known that this book is listed with the lowest level of valuation in the Coomaraswamy Report (i.e. “take note”).

7. “Military Brothels” and “Military Prostitutes (‘Comfort Women’)” Existed in Other Countries

During World War II, brothels for the use by military personnel were not particularly unusual. Every country in the world had them. The reason is that the issue of “sex on the battlefield” is at both important and difficult to solve for militaries of countries everywhere.

(1) The Soviet Union
According to Prof. Gerhard Reichling, the German section chief of an international organization concerned with refugee issues, 1,900,000 women were raped by the Soviet Red Army on the march to Berlin. Of that number, 1,400,000 were from the old eastern territory of Germany and 500,000 rapes occurred in the occupation zone. Prof. Reichling said that it was impossible to grasp the actual number of children born as a result of these rapes, but he estimated that there were some 292,000. Even if one disbelieves these numbers, the reality is that the battlefield demands the existence of military brothels.

(2) The United States
As of May 8, 1945, the United States had 1,600,000 soldiers stationed in Germany. Between March and April, 1945, 487 cases of rape were reported to the court at the US base in Heidleburg. Upon the capture of Sicily in 1943, the American army inherited the military brothel system, complete with personnel, formerly operated by the German and Italian armies: it was regulated by the U.S. military physicians and MPs. When the United States occupied Japan, in the first year of occupation there were 2,900 rapes reported in Kanagawa prefecture alone. In the seven years of the occupation, the General Headquarters (GHQ) of the Supreme Allied Command was concerned about the 2,536 murders and 30,000 rapes (see: Takayama Masayuki, “A Manual: ‘How to Make Japanese-Korean News’,” Shokun! Magazine, March, 2005), and so the GHQ demanded the Tokyo metropolitan government prepare a brothel for U.S. servicemen’s use in Tokyo. This is neither rumor nor exaggeration: it is the recorded truth.

(3) France
On April 21, 1945, the French army occupied Stuttgart. Professor Gaube, a Frenchman accompanying the army, was responsible for welfare and insurance concerns, had this to report: “The German women residents were not satisfactorily prepared for this misfortune; many places are reporting almost a hundred rapes have occurred. Even women over 60 and younger than 16 years of age were unable to escape this fate.”

(4) Germany
The Germany army, which attacked the Soviet Union, subjected “comfort women” to enforced recruitment; as Stalin had forbidden prostitution, the Germans had no alternative but to establish military brothels. Young women who refused to go into the German homeland as forced labor were taken instead to work in the brothels. Jewish women likewise were sent to the brothels.
It is claimed that about 200,000 children were born of German soldiers in Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, and France.

(5) Korea
The Korean military, which participated in the Vietnam War, used local military brothels as did the American army. There were many children of mixed blood born in Vietnam.
Finally, in Korea, after World War II and for a long time since there have been brothels for sole use by American military men which are managed by the Korean government.

Thus the problem of “sex on the battlefield” is a globally ubiquitous phenomenon. It is true that the Japanese army took a proactive stance in establishing military brothels at the front and made use of them. This was a measure done entirely to curb the potential for occurrences of rape.
Within the Japanese system of licensed military prostitutes, the management of the military brothels was undertaken by civilian merchants; the military participation was limited to providing goods for living, provisions, hygiene management, etc. The existence of such an army-licensed prostitution system was common all over the world in those days. There is absolutely no reason why Japan alone should be subject to censure for it.
Incidentally, according to the latest research of Professor Hata Ikuhiko of Nihon University, there were 20,000 or a few thousand more total comfort women for the Japanese army, and their composition was 40 percent Japanese, 30 percent locals of the area of the brothel, 20 percent Koreans, and 10 percent other nationalities (see: War and Sex, Hata Ikuhiko, Shincho Co., 1999, pp 406, 410). In other words, the fact of the matter is that there were in total only about 4,000 or 5,000 Korean comfort women; there is absolutely no way it was an unreasonably number like “20,000.”


References:
Nishioka Chikara, The Truth of Japanese-Korean Historical Problems. PHP.
Uesugi Chitoshi, Verification of Comfort Women, Soyo Co.
Hata Ikuhiko, Comfort Women and Sex on the Battlefield, Shincho Co.
Tasihido Tsuneyasu, There Was No Forced Taking of Comfort Women, Tenden Co.
0numa Yasuaki, The Comfort Women Problem and The Asian Foundation, Toshindo.
Helke Sander et al., The Truth of the Liberation of Berlin in 1945: War, Rape, and Children, Berlin Gendai Shokan.


従軍慰安婦」問題の真実
尾形　美明

１．　「従軍慰安婦」の実像

（1）公娼制度としての「慰安婦」
０６年９月１３日、米国下院国際関係委員会に於いて、朝鮮系ロビイスト達の強い働きかけに基づき「慰安婦に関する対日非難決議案」が可決された。
しかし、決議案が主張する「日本政府が１９３０年代から第二次大戦までの間に、若い女性を性奴隷とすることを唯一の目的として強制連行した」という指摘は、全く歴史的事実に反しており、単なる政治的宣伝に過ぎない。
結論から言えば、「慰安婦」システムの実態は単なる公娼制度であり、「慰安婦」とは純然たる「プロの女性」である。つまり、実際に存在していたのは、合法的な民間商業売春営業所であり、そこに働く慰安婦と呼ばれる女達であった。この点については米軍が記録した公式文書にも明確に記録されている。

（２）米軍記録に見る「慰安婦」の生活
１９４４年の米軍情報部の公的資料に、北ビルマのミートキーナー慰安所に収容されていた２０人の朝鮮人「慰安婦」に対する尋問記録がある。それによれば、これらの「慰安婦」達は、経済的理由から彼女達自身の親によって娼婦としてブローカーに売られたものであり、その対価は一人当たり３百円から千円であったという（当時、下士官の月給が約30円程度）。
報告書によれば、売上に対する彼女達の取り分は５割から６割で、月収は兵士の何十倍にもなったという。空いた時間には兵士とスポーツやピクニックを楽しむこともあり、娯楽、社交ディナー等で彼女ら自身楽しんだ。彼女たちは蓄音機も持ち、町の中では買い物に行くことも許された。
彼女達は客を拒否する権利を与えられており、兵士がひどく酒に酔っていた時など、頻繁に行使された。この取調べでは彼女らの健康状態も良い事を示している。

出典：UNITED STATES OFFICE OF WAR INFORMATION
Psychological Warfare Team
Attached to U.S. Army Forces India-Burma Theater APO 689

上記報告書では、「慰安婦」をはっきりと「売春婦」と言い切っている。また、慰安婦の募集にあたり一部のブローカーが違法行為を行う場合があった事を報告しているが、日本の官憲ないし軍隊による「強制連行」や「奴隷狩り」が行われたという指摘は全くない。

また、１９４５年、３人の韓国人軍属から聴取した記録でも、「太平洋戦場で会った朝鮮人慰安婦は、全て志願者か、両親に売られたものばかりである。もし女性達を強制連行すれば、老人も若者も朝鮮人は激怒して決起し、どんな報復を受けようとも日本人を殺すだろう」と述べられている。

出典：Composite Report three Korean Civilians List No.78, dated 28
March 1945,“Special Question on Koreans”(U.S. National Archives )。

（３）「慰安婦」の給料
上述の米軍情報部の調査報告によれば、彼女達の月平均の総収入は１５００円前後であり、その４０～５０％を受け取った。つまり、手取りは１月７５０円余りという高給取りであったことになる。
これを裏付ける実例もある。文玉珠という朝鮮人元「慰安婦」は、ビルマで「仕事」をした４３年６月から４５年９月までの間に、日本の野戦郵便局に２６１４５円の貯金をしていた。この事実は、１９９２年に彼女が貯金の払戻請求のため下関郵便局を訪れ、貯金原簿が見つかり判明した。（彼女は貯金残したままにしていて、その後長期間を経過したため、預金債権が時効にかかってしまった）これはつまり、２年３ヶ月の間に２万６千円強という巨額の蓄えをしたということであり、月の平均では１０００円近くを稼いでいたことになる。
因みに、日本兵の月給は二等兵が７円５０銭、軍曹が約３０円であったから、彼女たちは毎月日本兵の１００倍～２５倍相当を稼いでいたということだ。

（４）韓国政府も問題視せず
以上に指摘した事実からも明らかなように、「慰安婦」システムは純然たる公娼制度であり、日本本土及び朝鮮半島各地に存在した営利売春産業の一部に過ぎない。　従って、第二次大戦が終結し朝鮮が独立した後も、長く「慰安婦」の存在が政治問題として提起されることはなかった。なぜなら、実態を知る者にとって「慰安婦」の存在は問題ではありえなかったからである。当時、軍の駐屯地にある「慰安所」が営利売春施設であることは常識であり、「慰安婦」が親に売られた娘達であることは誰もが知っていた。当時、軍隊が暴力をもって慰安婦を連行したなどという「神話」は存在しなかったのである。
現に、１９５２年から１４年間にわたって行われた日間国交回復交渉において、韓国政府は「慰安婦」問題に一度も言及していない。韓国政府は当時から反日を国是としており、交回復交渉においても大日本帝国の朝鮮統治に一々難癖をつけては強硬に補償を要求していたにも関わらず、１４年間もの間、韓国政府からは「慰安婦」の単語一つ登場しなかったのである。

２．　「強制連行神話」の背景

既にのべたように、「慰安婦」システムは単なる公娼制度であり、また長い間そのように理解されて来た。実は、慰安婦について今日語られるような「誘拐」「強制連行」「性奴隷」といった単語が用いられ、政治問題化されるようになったのは１９８０年代になってからなのである。
戦後４０年を経て突然このような「神話」が生まれた背景には、次のようなイベントが介在している。「慰安婦」問題について正確に理解しようとするならば、まずこの「神話」を生んだ背景を知る必要がある。

（１）ある詐話師の「告白」
１９８３年、山口県下関市在住の吉田清治という日本人の男が「私の戦争犯罪―朝鮮人強制連行」という本を出版した。彼はこの本の中で、１９４３年、軍命令により韓国の済州島で兵士１０名とトラック２台を以って、若い娘や赤ん坊を抱いた母親を、奴隷狩りのように狩り立て連行したと告白した。
実は、吉田は職業的な詐話師であり、「告白」は全くの事実無根であった。しかし彼はその嘘が暴かれるまでの数年間、巧妙な芝居によって多くの人を欺き、印税や講演料による多額の収入を得た。その後、吉田の嘘は皮肉にも韓国人の手によって暴かれた。
吉田の本は８９年に韓国で翻訳出版され、それを読んだ韓国の「済州島新聞」の許栄善という女性記者が現地を調査したところ、該当する事実は皆無であった。住民たちは、「自分は当時からここに住んでいるがそんな事は知らない」「２５０余軒しかないこの村で、１５人も連行すれば大事件だがそんな事はなかった」と口を揃えたのである。また、済州島の郷土史家である金捧玉氏も何年間の追跡調査の結果、吉田の証言は事実ではないと断言した。彼は、吉田の本を、「こんなデタラメを書いて儲けようとする、日本人の悪徳を示す商魂の産物だ」と切り捨てた。こうした調査や証言をもとに、許記者は８９年８月１４日付「済州島新聞」に吉田証言を全面的に否定する記事を書いている。
しかし、「済州島新聞」は所詮発行部数の少ない地方紙にすぎず、結局この記事は殆ど注目されなかった。逆に韓国本土では、吉田証言の本が韓国語に翻訳されたことで、「慰安婦＝強制連行」のイメージが広がっていった。こうして流布された「神話」のイメージは、韓国の指導層によって、手頃な政治カードとして最大限利用された。日本兵が朝鮮女性を鞭打ちながら引き立てていく残虐非道なイメージは、映画、テレビドラマ、雑誌、新聞等に好んで引用され、果ては教科書にまで登場し、特に何の根拠も無いまま歴史的事実とされた。

（２）反日グループによる政治問題化
「吉田証言」などを基にして「慰安婦問題」を韓国及び日本国内で政治問題化を推し進めたのが日本の「反日」人権活動家グループである。彼らは、わざわざ韓国にまで出かけて、日本政府に「謝罪と賠償」を求める訴訟を起こすための「原告探し運動」を行ったのである。
元慰安婦を探し出す原告探し運動は韓国の「太平洋戦争犠牲者遺族会」などと協力して１９８９年１１月より始まり、１９９１年１２月に三人の元慰安婦による謝罪と補償を日本政府に求める訴訟を東京地裁に提起した。主任弁護士には原告団結成に熱心に取り組んだ反日人権活動家高木健一弁護士が就任した。

（３）　作られた「被害者」

９１年８月１１、日本の大手日刊紙である「朝日新聞」が同日付の紙面で金学順という女性を紹介し、彼女は『女子挺身隊』の名で戦場に連行され日本軍相手に売春行為を強いられた『元朝鮮人従軍慰安婦』であると報じた。この「元慰安婦」は、わずか１７歳で強制的に日本軍に連行され、慰安婦にさせられたはずだった。
しかし彼女は、そのわずか３日後の８月１４日にソウルで記者会見し、「母親によって桶屋に売られ、その後養父に連れられて軍隊の慰安所に入った」という事実を告白してしまった。また、彼女は同年の１２月に日本政府を相手取って損害賠償請求訴訟を提起しているが、その訴状にも彼女が１４歳で「キーセン」となった事実が正直に記載されている。「キーセン」とは、朝鮮古来の性サービス業に従事する女性を指すのだが、この訴訟を仕組んだ弁護士たちは当初その意味を見落としていたようである。
また朝日新聞は「売られた」とは書かずに「挺身隊」の名で戦場に連行されたと書いたのであるが、それを書いた記者は植村隆といい韓国語も達者であり、キーセンハウスに売られたことを知っていたはずなのである。しかも、彼は金学順さんも加わっているその後訴訟を起こす原告組織である「太平洋戦争犠牲者遺族会」のリーダー的存在である梁順任常務理事の娘婿であった。原告の親戚が事実と異なる記事を書いたのである。
なお、裁判の開始後にミスに気づいた弁護団は彼女を教唆し、「軍隊に強制連行された」と主張を変更させている。これは当時の日本国内における「慰安婦強制連行」キャンペーンがいかに無根拠かつ無軌道であったかを示す端的な事例である。

（４） 暗躍する朝日新聞

前述したように、９１年１２月、政治的意図を持ったグループに教唆された元慰安婦が東京地裁に訴訟を起こし、日本政府の「謝罪と賠償」を求めた。これにより、日本でも一気に「従軍慰安婦」問題がクローズアップされた。
このタイミングは、丁度翌９２年１月に予定されていた宮沢喜一首相の訪韓に合わせたものであったが、さらに反日勢力は、宮沢の訪韓直前にも一計を案じた。
左翼的な論調で知られる「朝日新聞」は、９２年１月１１日朝刊の一面トップで、「慰安所への軍関与示す資料」「政府見解揺らぐ」という見出しの記事を載せた。この記事は、一見すると、あたかも日本軍が「強制連行」を行ったという決定的証拠が発見されたかの如く報じていた。
しかし、実はこの記事は全くのミスリーディングなものであり、「軍の関与を示す資料」と報じた資料は、実際には軍が悪徳ブローカーの取締りを命じた文書だったのである。原文を読んでみると、当該資料は「慰安婦を斡旋するブローカーの一部が人さらいまがいの募集をやっているが、それは軍の威信に関わるから業者の選定、取締りを厳しくせよ」という趣旨の命令書であり、「強制連行」の証明に役立つ要素は一切なかった。現在では、この記事は、訪韓を直前に控えた宮沢を陥れるという政治的意図が込められた、所謂「吹かし」記事であったと言われている。
もっとも、このような検証が行われたのはその後暫く経ってからであり、全く準備期間のなかった宮沢は真相を知らされないまま訪韓しなければならなかった。訪韓中の宮沢は、韓国からだけでなく国内の共産勢力や反国家的な左翼勢力からも強烈なバッシングを浴びせかけられ、反論する時間も材料も与えられなかった。
この時、胆力のない宮沢は自身の内閣を守るために日本国民を裏切ってしまった。つまり、政治的妥協として、事実を確認しないまま韓国に「謝罪」したのである。彼が日本に帰国し、記事の検証結果を知ったときには既に後の祭りであった。

３． いわゆる「河野談話」

「慰安婦」問題で日本を糾弾する人々は、しばしば、いわゆる「河野談話」を引用して日本政府が「強制連行」を公式に認めていると主張するが、これは誤りである。
「河野談話」の内容と経緯を詳しく理解すれば、これが単なる外交辞礼、リップサービスに過ぎないことが理解できるはずである。

（１） 韓国政府の強い要請
いわゆる「河野談話」は、韓国政府の強い要請に基づいて、当時の内閣官房長官であった河野洋平のコメントとして発表されたものである。
１９９３年当時、日本と韓国は長く困難な外交交渉を進めていた。韓国の金泳三大統領は、国内世論への配慮から慰安婦問題に固執しており、慰安婦の募集に関して何らかの「強制性」の存在を認めることを日本に強く求めていた。長期にわたる反日プロパガンダで硬化していた韓国の世論は、すでに「慰安婦」が営利売春業であるという事実を受け入れられなくなっていたのである。
韓国側は、「強制連行」の証人として１６人の元慰安婦を指名したが、実際に聞取りを行ってみると身売りのケースが殆どであり、「強制性」の根拠となる証言は一つもなかった。しかし、韓国側の主張は「強制性を認めろ」の一点張りであり、交渉は進展しなかった。

（２） 妥協の産物としての河野談話
韓国の頑な態度により交渉が決裂しかけたとき、韓国側から妥協案が示された。つまり、日本が何らかの「強制性」を認めれば、韓国側は慰安婦問題を以後一切外交問題とせず、金銭的補償も要求しないという提案である。
交渉を纏めて実績作りをしたい政治家や外務官僚にとって、これは魅力的な提案であった。結局彼らは、トーンを弱めた「強制性」を遠まわしに認めることで交渉を纏めるという安易な妥協をしてしまったのである。かくして、９３年８月４日、河野洋平官房長官談話が出される事になった。

（３）誤解を招く表現
このいわゆる「河野談話」では、日本の軍隊や政府が直接「強制連行」を行ったとは認めていない。前述したように、「強制連行」の根拠となる事実は一切発見されていないからである。そこで、韓国側を納得させるために採られた表現は次のようなものである。
① ブローカーによる慰安婦の募集にはしばしば違法なもの、強制を伴うものがあった
② このブローカーの募集行為について、「官憲等が関与した事例があった」
③ 慰安婦の生活状況は必ずしも良好でなく、痛ましいケースがあった

この婉曲的な表現は、確かに文字通りに読めば、業者や制度全体を監督した国家の管理責任、公娼制度一般の悲劇性について述べているだけであり、韓国側が「今後一切問題としない」という約束を守ってくれるのであれば、特に問題にならないはずだった。

しかし、韓国政府は当初の約束を破り、河野談話を「日本政府が強制連行を認めた」証拠だとして大々的にとりあげ、外交カードとして存分に利用している。

４．　「証言集」の信憑性

しばしば「強制連行」の証拠とされるものの中に、韓国政府が編纂した元慰安婦たちの「証言集」がある。これは、ソウル大学の著名な歴史学者である安秉直教授が中心とする「挺身隊研究会」というプロジェクトにより実施された本格的な聞き取り調査の記録である。

この「証言集」によると、調査対象者４０余人のうち、まず証言内容が明らかに事実でないか、または自己矛盾するケースを除外し、これで残った１９人の証言を掲載したとある。つまり、日本政府の罪を告発しようとする運動体による調査ですら、４０余人中２０余人の証言が「明らかに不自然」と判断されたのである。

さて、その「証言集」には１９人の元慰安婦が登場するが、いわゆる「強制連行」を主張しているケースは４例しかない。しかも、内２人は慰安所の存在しなかったはずの土地で「慰安婦として働いた」と主張しており、信憑性が低いと判断せざるを得なかった。残るのは２人だけだが、一人は前述の金学順、もう一人は文玉珠（上述の２年３ヶ月間で2万６千円余を稼いだ人）であり、後に証言の虚構性が明らかになってしまった。
つまり、この「証言集」では二人とも強制連行されたと証言しているが、前述の通り二人は日本政府を相手取った裁判の原告にもなっており、当該訴状の中では二人とも「身売り」によって慰安婦になったと認めているのである。
韓国政府お墨付きの「証言集」でさえ、信用するに足る証言は一つもないということである。

５． 「従軍慰安婦＝強制連行」神話の元凶

（１）「従軍慰安婦＝強制連行」神話の元凶は、上記の吉田証言、朝日新聞その他の左翼勢力による情報操作と、これらに対する日本政府の無策な姿勢である。
前述のとおり、現在では吉田証言が完全な創作であったことに争いはないが、これを事実として報道した朝日新聞は未だに記事を訂正していない。そのため、事情に疎い海外の研究者や政治家が「強制連行」の証拠として吉田証言を引用する例が今日もあとを絶たない。
更に朝日新聞は、慰安婦の実態が単なる「身売り」であったことを意図的に隠して、「挺身隊として強制連行」されたと報じた。朝日新聞はこの記事についても未だに謝罪・訂正をしていない。それどころか、彼らは自らの虚言を糊塗するための新たな理論を開発した。「広義の強制性」と呼ばれる概念である。この「広義の強制性」には、本人の自発的意思に基づかない全ての原因が含まれる。
従って、彼らの理論によれば、親が日銭稼ぎに娘を売った場合も、悪質なブローカーに騙された女性が売春業者に売られた場合も、その全てが「日本軍による強制連行」なのである。朝日新聞の報道を「従軍慰安婦＝強制連行」説の根拠として挙げる人々の殆どは、こうした事情を知らない。

（２）このような状況に対して、日本国外務省の対応は全く無策である。それどころか、韓国との間の政治的妥協の産物として、何の根拠も無いまま、あたかも「強制連行」を認めたかのようなコメント（いわゆる「河野談話」）を発表して混乱に拍車をかけてしまった。この点は日本外交の無能を責めるべきである。しかし、そもそも｢河野談話｣は韓国政府の強い要請に基づき、生存する元慰安婦の名誉に配慮したコメントを日本側から出すことにより、韓国代表団に「花を持たせる」趣旨で行われた政治ショーに過ぎなかった。
河野は、単なる目先の外交問題処理の目的で、「政治カードとして利用しない」という韓国政府の約束を信じてその要求に応じてしまった。韓国はこの約束を早々に反古にし、「二度と問題にしない」どころか、米国、国連を始め世界中でこの問題を取り上げ、日本を糾弾する政治カードとして最大限「河野談話」を利用している。この韓国政府の不誠実な態度こそ糾弾されるべきであろう。

６．国連での非難決議

９６年２月、従軍慰安婦問題についてのクマラスワミ国連特別報告官の日本政府に対する勧告案（「クマラスワミ報告」）が、国連人権委員会に提出された。この報告書の内容のうち、事実関係に関わる部分は、すべてオーストラリア人ジャーナリストのジョージ・ヒックスが９５年に刊行した「慰安婦」（The Comfort Women）という通俗書からの引用である。朝鮮語のできないヒックスは、東京大学の高橋教授に頼んで在日韓国人女性のユミ・リーを紹介してもらい、彼女が日本の左翼運動家達から資料を集め、これを英訳したものを基に本書を執筆した。ヒックス自身、資料の８０%は彼女に依存したと認めており、本書の情報源の殆どが日本の左翼活動家であったことは明らかである。この結果、ヒックスの著書は、歴史的事実ではなく、政治的プロパガンダを書き連ねただけの内容になっている。
クマラスワミ報告書は、このヒックスの著書を無批判に引用したために、初歩的な事実誤認や歪曲に満ちた、救いようのない内容になってしまった。典型的なものとしては、「日本陸軍司令官の命令」で、「長崎県知事」が朝鮮人婦女子を「強制輸送」したというエピソードがあるが、命令系統の点だけでもあり得ない話であることは一目瞭然である。（この話は完全な創作であり、現在このような事実を主張する者はいない。）
さらに同報告書は、「日本軍は暴力、あからさまな強制、そして自分たちの娘を誘拐から守ろうとする家族達の殺戮を含む“人狩り”という手段に訴えた」と記している。しかしその主張の根拠は吉田清治の著書「私の戦争犯罪―朝鮮人強制連行」であった。前述の通り、この吉田の著書は韓国人自身の手による調査の結果、８９年時点で完全に否定されている。この事実は、同報告書が殆ど何の調査も行わないまま「まず結論ありき」で作成されたことを暗示している。
因みに、同報告書の国連内部での評価が「take note」、つまり最低級であることは意外に知られていない。

＊ The Women’s International War Crime Tribunal on Japan’s Military Sexual Slavery

Violence Against Women in War – Network Japan （VAWW-NET -Japan）という組織が、左翼人権派グループによって、１９９８年発足した。その代表は、元朝日新聞記者の西野留美子。人権はとなえるが、そのグループのメンバーの誰一人として、近年における日本で最大の人権侵害事件である、北朝鮮拉致問題に対して批判、救済活動を行なったことのないことに象徴されるように、通常の意味における人権など全く関心の埒外な人々である。正確に言えば、かれらは日本糾弾の反日左翼活動を「人権」を隠れ蓑にして行なっているいわば詐欺グループである。
２０００年１２月８日、VAWW-NETT-Japanは、東京において世界１６カ国から人権派の賛同者を集めて、「女性戦犯国際法廷」なるものを開催した。法廷を僭称して言えるものの、検事と判事は存在するが、弁護士は存在しないという全く茶番そのものである。左翼人権リンチと呼ぶべきこのイベントにおいて、日本は慰安婦という性奴隷を若い女性に強いたという「判決」を下したのである。検事には、もはや金正日の自白によって明々白々となっている北朝鮮の国家犯罪であるあの忌まわしい拉致犯罪を行なった対日工作機関の幹部工作員黄虎郎ほか３名が名を連ねている。（黄ともう一名が出席）。これがすべてを語っているといえるような極めて悪質なグループなのである。
このグループが、翌年の２００１年１２月４日にはオランダのハーグで同じようなイベントを行なったのである。ハーグには国際司法裁判所があることを狙って、Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal in Hague を開催したわけである。全く法的根拠のないこの茶番劇を「錯覚」する人を狙ったイベントである。現にアメリカの下院議員で、慰安婦問題に関するわれわれの質問に
“The Woment's International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague found in
December 2001 that the Emperor Showa, General Tojo, and eight other
generals were guilty of crimes against humanity during and before World War II and that the current Japanese government is responsible for reparations to the
victims of the Imperial Army's "comfort station" system.”
などと答える有様なのである。全く詐欺にはまったケースといわなければならない。人権派詐欺集団といったのは決して、誇張ではないのである。

７、　世界各国に存在した「慰安所」｢慰安婦｣

そもそも、第2次大戦が行われていた1940年代には、軍隊用の売春施設は特に珍しいものではなく、世界各国に存在していた。なぜなら、「戦場におけるセックス」の問題は、どの国の軍隊にとっても重要かつ解決困難な課題だったからである。

（１） ソ連：
世界難民問題研究協会のドイツ課長であるライヒリンク博士によれば、ソ連赤軍がベルリンまで侵攻してくる間に、１９０万人の女性が強姦されたという。そのうち１４０万人は旧ドイツ東部領など、５０万人は後のソ連占領地域に於いて強姦されたとされる。ライヒリンク博士は、強姦の結果として生まれた子供の数を掴む事は不可能だとしつつ、その数を２９万２千人と推定している。数値の相当性の問題は措くとしても、こうした戦場の現実が「慰安所」の存在を要求するのである。

（２） アメリカ:
アメリカ軍は１９４５年５月８日時点で、１６０万人の兵士がドイツに駐留していた。ハイデルベルクの米軍司令部は、４５年３月から４月の間に裁判所で４８７件の強姦が扱われたとしている。１９４３年のシシリー島占領後、米軍はドイツ・イタリア軍が運営していた慰安所をシステムと人員ぐるみ引継ぎ、軍医とMPが規制した。
アメリカ軍が日本に進駐した時、最初の１ヶ月、それも神奈川県下だけで２９００件の強姦事件が発生した。７年の占領期間中には２５３６件の殺人と３万件の強姦事件を起こした（高山正之氏、「諸君」３月号‘０５）事態を憂慮した、GHQはついに東京都に慰安所の設置を要求した。これはうわさや誇張ではなくれっきとした事実である。

（３） フランス：
フランス軍は４５年４月２１日にシュツッツガルトを占領した。福祉・保険関係の責任者になったガウブ教授はこう報告している。｢女性住民はこの災難に十分な準備がなく、多くの場所で強姦行為が何百件となく起こった。６０歳以上の女性も１６歳以下の少女もこれを逃れる事はできなかった｣。

(４)ドイツ:
ソ連に侵攻したドイツ軍は、ソ連ではスターリンが売春を禁じていたので、慰安所を新設せざるを得ず、慰安婦はしばしば強制徴用された。ドイツ本国への強制労働を拒否した若い女性は、代わりに慰安所で働かされた。ユダヤ人も同様であった。
ノルウエー、デンマーク、ベルギー、オランダ、フランスではドイツ兵の子供が約２０万人生まれたといわれる。

（５）ベトナム戦争に参加した韓国軍は、現地の慰安婦を米軍同様に利用し、ベトナム人との混血児がたくさん生まれている。
そして韓国では、第2次大戦後も長期にわたり、米軍専用の売春施設が存在し、これを国家が管理していた。

この様に、戦場における性の問題は世界的な普遍現象である。日本軍は確かに慰安施設を積極的に戦地に誘致し利用していたが、これは専ら強姦事件の発生を最小限に抑えるための措置であった。
日本の軍隊公娼システムにおいて、慰安所を運営したのは民間業者であり、軍の関与は生活物資の供給や衛生管理等に留まる。こうした軍隊公娼システムは当時の世界各国に普通に存在していたものであり、日本だけがことさら非難をされる筋合いは全くない。

因みに、日本大学の秦郁彦教授による最新の研究によると、旧日本軍の慰安婦は合計２万人から２万数千人で、その構成は日本人４０％、現地人３０％、韓国人２０％、その他１０%と推定されるという。（「戦場と性」（秦郁彦著／新潮社、１９９９、ｐ.４０６、４１０）つまり、韓国人慰安婦の実数は、４～５千人程度というのが実態であり、「20万」などという途方もない数ではあり得ないのである。
以上
参考文献：
「日韓歴史問題の真実」西岡力、PHP
「検証、従軍慰安婦」上杉千年、そうよう社
「慰安婦と戦場の性」秦郁彦、新潮社
「慰安婦強制連行はなかった」太師堂経慰、展転社
「慰安婦問題とアジア基金」大沼保昭他、東信堂
「１９４５年ベルリン開放の真実―戦争・強姦・子供」ヘルケ・ザンダー他、現代書館