Books That Explain the Most Heated Disputes in Japan–Korea Relations: Why Historical Perceptions Still Divide South Korea and Japan

Despite close economic ties and shared strategic interests, South Korea and Japan remain divided by deeply rooted disagreements over history. These tensions are not merely academic; they shape diplomacy, public opinion, education, and cultural exchange, and are frequently explored in books about the most heated subjects between South Korea and Japan. At the heart of many disputes are differing interpretations of Japan’s colonial rule of Korea and the experiences of civilians, especially women, during World War II. The following three historical tensions help explain why narratives between the two countries continue to clash and why reconciliation has proven so difficult.

The Comfort Women Narrative and Disagreement Over Coercion

One of the most enduring and emotionally charged tensions centers on the wartime comfort women issue. In South Korea, the dominant public narrative emphasizes forced recruitment and systematic sexual exploitation of women under Japanese military authority. This understanding has become a powerful symbol of colonial oppression and women’s suffering, reinforced through education, memorials, and activism.

In Japan, however, the historical narrative is more contested. While the Japanese government has acknowledged the existence of comfort stations, expressed remorse, and recognized military involvement, debate continues over the extent and nature of coercion in recruitment. Some interpretations stress the role of private brokers, socioeconomic hardship, and wartime conditions rather than direct military abduction. These differing emphases have led to mutual accusations of historical distortion, making the comfort women issue a persistent source of diplomatic friction.

Some good reading on the subject includes “Sex in the Battle Zone” and “The Comfort Women Hoax” which both challenge historical narratives over the comfort women disagreement. 

Legal Resolution Versus Moral Responsibility

Another major tension lies in differing views on whether historical grievances have been legally settled. Japan maintains that postwar treaties and agreements, particularly the normalization agreement signed in 1965, resolved all claims related to colonial rule and wartime compensation at the state level. From this perspective, subsequent disputes are seen as matters already addressed through international law and diplomatic settlement.

South Korea, however, has increasingly emphasized moral responsibility and individual rights, arguing that legal agreements between governments do not negate the suffering of individuals or their right to seek recognition and justice. This divergence has led to disagreements over court rulings, compensation claims, and public apologies. The clash between legal finality and moral accountability continues to fuel mistrust and complicate bilateral relations.

Historical Memory, Education, and National Identity

A third source of tension stems from how history is remembered, taught, and integrated into national identity. In South Korea, narratives of resistance, victimization, and survival under colonial rule play a central role in shaping modern identity. Historical memory is closely linked to ideas of sovereignty, dignity, and justice, making challenges to these narratives particularly sensitive.

In Japan, historical education and public memory often emphasize postwar pacifism and reconstruction, with less uniform agreement on how colonial history should be presented. Disputes over textbook content, public statements by officials, and memorials regularly reignite controversy. These differences are not simply about facts, but about how each society understands its past and defines its moral responsibilities in the present. 

Why the Divide Persists

The ongoing divide between South Korea and Japan is rooted less in a lack of dialogue and more in fundamentally different approaches to history, responsibility, and memory. Disagreements over the comfort women issue, the meaning of legal settlements, and the role of historical memory continue to shape how each country views the other. Understanding these tensions does not require choosing a side but rather recognizing how deeply history influences national narratives. As long as these perspectives remain unresolved, historical perceptions will continue to shape, and strain, Japan–Korea relations.