To address the question of whether Japanese and Western imperialism differed, one must first understand what imperialism means. The term “imperialism” first appeared in France in the 19th century and was later introduced into English by critics of Louis Napoleon. It is descriptive of the relationship between a controlling power and those under its rule and refers to the attempt by such a power to dominate and impose its will on a foreign area. A country can be deemed imperialistic if it has sovereignty over separate areas of which it refuses to abandon its dominion if it uses coercion or force to maintain its rule if it will not continue to govern unless it believes it will benefit from doing so, and if the rights, liberties and political powers of those inhabiting the conquered areas are subject to its authority. The conquered areas can be distant, often overseas, areas acquired as colonies, or proximate to the conquering power and annexed by it.
While there are undoubtedly similarities between Japanese and Western imperialism, marked differences in motive, aim, and approach led to drastically different responses and outcomes for both the conquered and the conqueror. In addition, differences in ideology as well as historical, political, and economic circumstances influenced how the empires were structured and the decisions of the governing body. In this paper, I will begin by stating the similarities between Japanese and Western imperialism about motive, tactic, and outcome. I will then discuss the key differences that distinguish Japanese imperialism from Western imperialism to prove the unique nature of the rise and fall of the Japanese empire.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Inherent in Japanese and Western imperialism is nationalistic sentiment, specifically the belief in the superiority of one’s own country. Scholars claimed that British rule was a “blessing” to India as it led to the end of local infighting and reduced taxation and poverty. James Bryce states, “To India severance from England would mean confusion, bloodshed, and pillage”. Similarly, American diplomats described the Thai as a “highly superstitious” people “worshipping idols” living under a “despotic government” waiting for Western religion to “enlighten” them. The idea that all other religions are inferior to Christianity is a common theme in the West. Japan was no different. To the Japanese, those who resisted their rule were bandits hindering their execution of the Heavenly task. Japan also saw its victories in the Sino-Japanese and Russo-Japanese wars as proof of its right to control Korea.
In addition to nationalism, security threats played an important role in spurring imperialistic action. In the case of British imperialism, imperial activity heightened whenever multicentricity increased, as it did during 1730-1815 and 1873–1939. The intense economic competition between Britain and other world powers like Spain and France led British merchants to call for territorial expansion. Since British officials also feared that economic threats would translate into security threats, taking new colonies seemed like the perfect solution as it would diminish rivals’ trade and economic power, removing both economic and security threats in one go. On the other hand, when Britain was the dominant economic and military power in 1815–1873, it seized far fewer territories than before despite numerous opportunities and preferred trade over colonial activity.
For Japan, Korea epitomized the security problem, hence a main goal of its foreign policy was that this “dagger pointed at Japan” should not fall into the hostile hands of its bordering expansionist powers China and Russia, which both showed interest in the “Hermit kingdom”. Security considerations were central to Japanese imperialism because Japan, as an Asian state, could not assume its exemption from Western imperialist aggression. As a result, limited expansion into nearby critical areas was seen as essential for its defense.
While the aims of Japanese and Western imperialism tended to differ, how the process of imperialism occurs is similar. The native peoples are seen and treated as inferior, citizens of the conquering power settle in the conquered area, and the local economy and political sphere are manipulated and exploited to the advantage of the colonizer. Discriminatory tax policies and unfavorable terms of trade were common to both Japanese and Western empires as colonies were forced to sign unequal treaties, which often provided for extraterritoriality. Japan also treated Korea as an outlet for its excess population and bent the Korean economy to its own needs, which led Korea to become dependent on Japan.
The use of force and coercion to maintain dominion over conquered areas can be seen in nearly all cases of imperialism. When Koreans refused Japanese reign, they were ruthlessly driven into submission by the Japanese military and police force. British correspondent F. A. McKenzie described one such attempt at pacification: “Japanese soldiers were allowed great license, wounded were bayonetted, women violated, women and children were shot in scores”. Likewise, American diplomacy in Asia during the mid-19th century is referred to as gunboat diplomacy due to its overt displays of force. It must be noted, however, that the exploitation of local resources and discrimination against local peoples cannot be justified despite the positive contributions by colonizers to local education, health, and infrastructure.
About differences between Japanese and Western imperialism, a key point that made the Japanese empire unique was its late start. Unlike Western Europe, which began colonizing in the 16th century, Japan’s imperialistic activities began in 1894. This was as Japan pursued a policy of national isolation from 1640-1854, meaning Japanese merchants, who faced many restrictions and were denied opportunities to participate in foreign trade, could not be pioneers or middlemen, unlike merchants from the West. Due to its limited experience, Japan lacked the policy and leadership that could aid it in its imperialistic plans. However, this late entry also had its advantages, as Japan was able to look at the experiences of the West objectively and discern the methods that promised success. This is not to say that Japanese imperialism was a mere mash-up or refinement of the policies and techniques of the West, for the aims and purposes of the Japanese were much their own, influenced by Japanese history and culture, as were how it fulfilled its needs and ambitions.
While Western colonization was prompted by intellectual curiosity, the search for profit, and religious purposes, Japanese imperialism was shaped by its desire to secure its place as a great global power, to become the “Great Britain of the East”, and not to be left behind in the modern, industrialized world dominated by the West. National pride, driven by the jeers of Western media, was likely key to Japan's final decision on colonialism. However, unlike Western empires, the Japanese empire was restricted only to its immediate neighbors - China, Korea, and a few nearby islands. This was due to limited resources and high stakes, as Japan was a relatively undeveloped country at the time and had to rely on foreign capital as well as the advice and assistance of foreign experts to carry out its plans. Without much margin for error, it was in Japan’s best interest to focus its attention and energy on the creation of a Greater Japan.
Japan’s empire was the most compact of all imperial regimes in the 20th century. While it was easier to control, it roused dread and antagonism only in its neighbors and was scarcely the envy and concern of the more powerful Western empires. Japan’s imperialistic actions rarely faced pushback, as its sovereignty over the Bonin Islands was not contested by the United States and Britain, and China’s claims to Okinawa were not aggressively pressed. The only threat to the perpetuation of the Japanese empire was perhaps Japan itself, reflected in its growing desire to capture overseas territory, spurred on by its successes.
As mentioned previously, the aims of Japanese and Western imperialism were, for the most part, dissimilar. On one hand, Western powers focused on trade due to the view that “A Nation cannot be safe without Power . . . Power cannot be obtained without Riches; nor Riches without Trade”. On the other hand, Japan pushed the idea of a united Asia under Japanese rule with its “Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere” campaign aimed at liberating Asian countries from white imperial suppression. This fundamental difference meant that Japan was much more aggressive in its assimilation of foreign territories. Britain and Japan both introduced reforms like the prohibition of child labor, but Japan went even further and placed restrictions on the Korean language and culture through the Japaneseification of Korean names and forced worship at Shinto shrines. In addition, while most companies in India were still owned by Indians despite discriminating against British policies, over 60% of industrial production in Korea was owned and financed by Japan.
The Japanese looked down on the concept of the “white man’s burden” and had no intention for its colonies to eventually self-govern, let alone gain independence. The fact that other imperialistic powers only encouraged, but never insisted that their colonial subjects adopt their culture and way of life was inconceivable for Japan. Japanese colonies were expected to align their identities and interests with Japan, and in doing so renounce their own cultures and traditions. Contrary to Western powers, Japan has never been accused of neglecting its colonies. Rather, they suffered from excessive attention. Japan’s colonies were treated not as distant possessions but as parts of a hierarchical yet economically and ideologically integrated imperial structure.
A major difference between Japanese and Western imperialism lay in the response of the peoples they conquered. For Britain, the people they encountered often lacked the means to challenge British rule. The British quickly established dominion in India, but Japan had to fight major wars before finally annexing Korea. The reason for this lay in the historical enmity between Japan and Korea - Korean history was littered with Japanese aggression, and Koreans noted that Japanese culture owed a great deal to Korea. As a result, hostility towards Japan transcended even the serious political and regional divisions within Korea.
Like Britain, Japan believed that economic ties were a more effective means of control than military dominance, which was both provocative and costly. Japan decided to emulate the successful tactic of Cromerism employed by the British in Egypt to diminish native antipathy and retain international sympathy. Unfortunately for Japan, its attempts to establish trade and diplomatic relations with Korea were refused. Even so, Japan remained cautious and annexation was viewed as an extreme step to be held in reserve up until 1909, when Japan finally grew weary of the struggle.
In contrast to Western powers like Britain and the United States, which occasionally faced nonviolent resistance and even the willing cession of territories, most Japanese attempts at colonization were met with violence. In Korea, anti-Japanese unifying swooped on Japanese police outposts and murdered Japanese civilians, and there were often riots. The reason for this hostility lay in Korea’s resentment of not only the exploitation and harsh rule of the Japanese but also its deliberate campaign to extinguish their culture and way of life. Since cultural traits were transmitted to Japan through Korea, the Japanese had to declare Shintoism as the state religion to get legitimacy. They therefore forced Koreans to accept their religious values and placed restrictions on the other religions. Christianity was banned due to the idea that the Korean mind was being “poisoned” by it. Korea’s seclusion policy kept its culture intact, which meant that Koreans were highly sensitive to their value system and reacted strongly when changes were made by a foreign power.
On the other hand, the diversity of culture and lack of a common religion in India made the British reluctant to interfere with these aspects of the Indian people. Rather than homogenize Indian culture and religion, they took an interest in it, as seen by their attempts to translate religious texts into English. Since Britain’s interest in India was mainly economic, they did not have any cultural exchanges with India before taking it as a colony. The relative lack of hostility could therefore be because the British stepped into India abruptly and without any historical base.
What sets the Japanese empire apart is, in addition to its late start and short duration, its abrupt end. Japan’s surrender in the summer of 1945 not only drew WWII to a close, it also marked the end of Japan’s empire. The fate of the Japanese empire has been narrated by historians as a story of “instant decolonization,” for it vanished suddenly without a trace. For many Japanese, their colonial possessions were neither liberated nor gradually ceded – they were simply gone. The disappearance of the Japanese empire was understood by many as a form of immediate decolonization effected forcibly by external forces, or what Lori Watt has called “third-party-decolonization”. One could say that “Japan’s empire was terminated with little discussion”. The former Japanese empire was therefore “never of domestic concern; it was the problem of other nations”. Since it did not face the same natural and gradual end of other empires, Japan did not experience the conflicts of the drawn-out and often violent processes of imperial devolution suffered by other colonial powers.
It seems clear that Japanese imperialism can be considered distinct from Western imperialism due to differences in aim and strategy, which can largely be accounted for by the unique historical and global circumstances in which Japan found itself during this period. Japan started its process of colonialism far later due to its policy of isolationism, and by the time it began to realize its ambitions, it was faced with the dilemma of choosing between East and West. Siding with Korea and China may close off much-needed financial and diplomatic support from the West, yet siding with the West in exploiting Asia may be just as dangerous since China could re-emerge as a global power. Stuck between Asia and the West, Japan’s attempts to assimilate power were ultimately unsuccessful as neither East Asian nor Western co-prosperity was advanced - China, Russia, Britain, and America were all displeased.
Stuck on your essay?
