You have to remember Roosevelt was a warfighter and probably highly respected the Japanese for their tenacity in defeating both the Chinese and the Russians who Roosevelt clearly disliked. As far as Korea he knew little about the place and probably didn't have much respect for the Korean people's ability for self determination since the Japanese so easily occupied the country. Most importantly how would protesting the annexation be in America's national interest? There was nothing strategically important about Korea at the time and remember the US was busy colonizing the Philippines at the time as well.

The lesson that should be learned is that Korea needs to continue to make defense its number one national priority to be able to prevent such tragic circumstances from happening again.

You are upset because (empty words) that would have had no impact were not spoken?

Is that what you mean?

Did Korea even exist (as a Government) after Japan's conquest? In relation to cutting off all relations with a Government that no longer existed. Who would have been speaking for Korea? Japan?

Yes we know Korea has been a pawn to any country that was more powerful. The same can be said for many countries around the world that are weaker than their neighbors. Korea is not special in it's suffering.

I also know that the ROK would not exist today, if not for the U.S. which is the symbol of what is good in the world.

In terms of human rights in general and in particular w/ regards to Japan's brutal conquests, Roosevelt's choosing not to respect international law is troubling.

Korea's history is filled w/ examples of being the pawn of more powerful countries and it's sadder when one of those powerful countries is the U.S. that is the symbol of what is supposed to be good.

I would have liked to have seen the U.S. at least protest the annexation and try to recognize Korea's sovereignty.

All Taft-Katsura did was state the obvious, Japan controlled Korea and the US wouldn't interfere.

Even if the US wanted to help Korea it couldn't because the US didn't have the military capacity to do so. The 1905 US military was as strong or even less strong than the major European powers and the Japanese had just got done defeating the Russians. What land forces the US had were tied down anyway in the Philippines trying to put down the Moro Rebellion.

Why should the US fight a war it can't win, for a country unwilling to fight for their own freedom, and of no national interest to the US?

Sadao Asada points out what should have been obvious to Bradley and the editors of the New York Times: “Bradley entirely ignores and skips the course of real Japanese aggression from the Manchurian Incident of 1931 to Japan’s advance to southern Indochina in 1941.” Of course: there was plenty of policy and policy change in both the US and Japan between 1905 and 1941. But more, “In my view (shared by many of my Japanese colleagues and most of American specialists in TR’s diplomacy), the Taft-Katsura Agreement was a part of TR’s ‘realistic’ policy of ‘peaceful coexistence’ with Japan based on his sphere-of-influence policy and balance-of-power considerations.”

OK, I cut and pasted. My bad. Also not mentioned is that it would have been a buffer to Russia as well at that time. Bottom line is it had little to do ( nothing) with the start of WWII.

But don't you think Senator Bradley made some good points? Would love to hear what you think.

Back in 1900, Roosevelt had written, “I should like to see Japan have Korea.”

“I have of course concealed from everyone — literally everyone — the fact that I acted in the first place on Japan’s suggestion … . Remember that you are to let no one know that in this matter of the peace negotiations I have acted at the request of Japan and that each step has been taken with Japan’s foreknowledge, and not merely with her approval but with her expressed desire.”

To signal his commitment to Tokyo, Roosevelt cut off relations with Korea, turned the American legation in Seoul over to the Japanese military and deleted the word “Korea” from the State Department’s Record of Foreign Relations and placed it under the heading of “Japan.”

The Monroe Doctrine basically said to the European powers — who were trying to stave off a WWI by "balancing power" by gobbling up much of the rest of the world – "Stay out of South and Central America."

If you can show me how the Monroe Doctrine activated the US into colonizing the rest of the Western Hemisphere beyond what it already had semi-control of in North America, I'll honestly look at it….until then….