Current Events > Why wasn't Japan colonized by the europeans

(+) Yeah! (+)

The lack of resources argument is just a cope for white supremacy, Japan wasn't colonized because it was a unified nation state that could fight off the Europeans...Therefore, they couldn't... And no, Mathew Perry shooting up a harbor is not a form of colonization. Lets just admit that non white countries were strong enough to resist colonization and not because of some lack of resources horse ****. Japan is the 3rd richest country in the world and had the resources to industrialize, so gtfo with that resource bull ****.

Bonus point

Korea resisting European colonization

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_expedition_to_Korea

---

Because you touch yourself at night.

---

Well the Americans did land on Isolantionist Japan and force them into trade...

It's not occupation or colonization but it is imposing their foreign policy on another country.

---

ShineboxPhil posted...

Well the Americans did land on Isolantionist Japan and force them into trade...

It's not occupation or colonization but it is imposing their foreign policy on another country.

But was it colonization? China got beat in multiple actual wars against the europeans.

---

Maybe they fought back better than most?

I dunno.

---

Because it was more valuable as a market than it was a colony.

---

White Supremacy?

---

KILBOTz posted...

Because it was more valuable as a market than it was a colony.

Why so?

---

Because Japan was a colonizer country. Korea, Taiwan, Manchuria (plus a lot more briefly during WWII). They modernized when the West showed up and modeled themselves after Western powers, which included engaging in colonization.

---

ssjevot posted...

Because Japan was a colonizer country. Korea, Taiwan, Manchuria (plus a lot more briefly during WWII). They modernized when the West showed up and modeled themselves after Western powers, which included engaging in colonization.

They weren't a colonizer from 1500-1890s

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

They weren't a colonizer from 1500-1890s

Yeah, they didn't have the capability, and Western powers outside the Dutch weren't interested in access to their markets. Once Matthew Perry showed up they had no choice but to open themselves up to Western trade, but this caused the Meiji restoration which led to them becomig an imperial power.

---

the story of godzilla goes way back. way, way back. they didn't want to take no chances.

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

Why so?

Well unlike china who said fuck you we're great and you can't play with us, Japan said cool, sell us guns and help us modernize, imperialism sounds pretty sweet.

Chinese colonization really only really started in the 1840s only after trade wasn't allowed. Japan allowed trade, opened up to other nations that brought gunboat diplomacy.

Colonization and war is expensive. If you are already getting to do the trading you want and there is a reasonably centralized government there, no need to colonize.

---

ssjevot posted...

Yeah, they didn't have the capability, and Western powers outside the Dutch weren't interested in access to their markets. Once Matthew Perry showed up they had no choice but to open themselves up to Western trade, but this caused the Meiji restoration which led to them becomig an imperial power.

so they weren't colonized?

---

KILBOTz posted...

Well unlike china who said fuck you we're great and you can't play with us, Japan said cool, sell us guns and help us modernize, imperialism sounds pretty sweet.

Chinese colonization really only really started in the 1840s only after trade wasn't allowed. Japan allowed trade, opened up to other nations that brought gunboat diplomacy.

Colonization and war is expensive. If you are already getting to do the trading you want and there is a reasonably centralized government there, no need to colonize.

So Japan was the only non white country in the world that wanted to buy guns and the Europeans agreed to this and didn't colonize them?

---

Real life lore did a good YouTube piece of why japan is so hard to colonize, and its mainly their geography, mostly mountainous terrains with very few port areas for invaders to land and conquer the country

https://youtu.be/6MsPEyfuicw starts at 5:35

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

So Japan was the only non white country in the world that wanted to buy guns and the Europeans agreed to this and didn't colonize them?

uh, no. thailand (Siam), iran, ethiopia, mongolia, and others were never colonized. And even though I mentioned China earlier even they weren't really colonized, they lost control of a few port cities because actually colonizing the entire nation would have been impossible.


---

KILBOTz posted...

uh, no. thailand (Siam), iran, ethiopia, mongolia, and others were never colonized. And even though I mentioned China earlier even they weren't really colonized, they lost control of a few port cities because actually colonizing the entire nation would have been impossible.

My point was that there were many countries that bought guns from the Europeans and were still colonized....Native Americans are a good example

---

KILBOTz posted...

mongolia

Half of Mongolia is currently China, and the only reason the other half isn't is because the Soviets protected them for geopolitical reasons. All of Mongolia was part of China for quite a while before they declared independence.

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

My point was that there were many countries that bought guns from the Europeans and were still colonized....Native Americans are a good example

The new world is not at all comparable to east asia. In 1840 Japan had ~30m people living in an area smaller than california.

The populations of native americans was somewhere around 5-10m by 1620 when American colonization really started ramping up. On the one hand you have lots of natural resources, very few people. So you send people over to take advantage of the natural resources and send back profits.

Then look at a model like India. If it wasn't for internal strife, no chance England could have ever colonized India. Because of all the infighting they were able to divide and conquer. But again, immense wealth in India making it worth the fight.

China was much more consolidated than India hence only port cities being lost. But China still had tons of great resources making it worth the effort.

Japan, too many people, not enough land, not enough resources to be worth it. Having them be consumers just made more sense.

---

KILBOTz posted...

The new world is not at all comparable to east asia. In 1840 Japan had ~30m people living in an area smaller than california.

The populations of native americans was somewhere around 5-10m by 1620 when American colonization really started ramping up. On the one hand you have lots of natural resources, very few people. So you send people over to take advantage of the natural resources and send back profits.

Then look at a model like India. If it wasn't for internal strife, no chance England could have ever colonized India. Because of all the infighting they were able to divide and conquer. But again, immense wealth in India making it worth the fight.

China was much more consolidated than India hence only port cities being lost. But China still had tons of great resources making it worth the effort.

Japan, too many people, not enough land, not enough resources to be worth it. Having them be consumers just made more sense.

I mean you literally just proved my point then back tracked to your baseless claim lol.


---

Your claim is that one of many elements is the reason Japan wasn't colonized. My claim is that there are many reasons Japan wasn't because of a really complicated calculation that every colonizing nation would have done at the time.

If simply having a centralized government was enough Northern Africa would never have been colonized. Brunei never would have colonized. If Japan was an island of gold and spice, it would have been colonized.

The juice just wasn't worth the squeeze. More money was to be made by trading than colonizing.

---

KILBOTz posted...

Your claim is that one of many elements is the reason Japan wasn't colonized. My claim is that there are many reasons Japan wasn't because of a really complicated calculation that every colonizing nation would have done at the time.

If simply having a centralized government was enough Northern Africa would never have been colonized. Brunei never would have colonized. If Japan was an island of gold and spice, it would have been colonized.

The juice just wasn't worth the squeeze. More money was to be made by trading than colonizing.

Northern Africa and Brunei weren't strong enough to resist European colonization. Judging Japan today and how strong they were in WW2, comparing Japan to these two countries is absurd

If resources were so important than why did were places like Australia colonized. Bigger question, why wasn't China conquered because that was the golden hub for resources?


---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

Northern Africa and Brunei weren't strong enough to resist European colonization. Judging Japan today and how strong they were in WW2, comparing Japan to these two countries is absurd

If resources were so important than why did were places like Australia colonized. Bigger question, why wasn't China conquered because that was the golden hub for resources?

WWII technically was an extension of the second Sino-Japanese War which was exactly an attempt at conquering China. And despite being in a Civil War, Imperial Japan never made any real progress and were faced with the prospect of pulling out once the oil embargo hit. Instead they decided to attack the US and seize a bunch of other territories to get oil.

It didn't work out for them.

---

Looking at the date the Yankees were busy colonizing the South. Setting up systemic racism was not as easy it looks.

---

The Portuguese certainly tried.

---

Filipino Rebellion posted...

Real life lore did a good YouTube piece of why japan is so hard to colonize, and its mainly their geography, mostly mountainous terrains with very few port areas for invaders to land and conquer the country

https://youtu.be/6MsPEyfuicw starts at 5:35

This...geography is a HUGE part of politics

---

I know I've seen you make this topic before

---

Because the Euros feared the samurai.

ssjevot posted...

WWII technically was an extension of the second Sino-Japanese War which was exactly an attempt at conquering China. And despite being in a Civil War, Imperial Japan never made any real progress and were faced with the prospect of pulling out once the oil embargo hit. Instead they decided to attack the US and seize a bunch of other territories to get oil.

It didn't work out for them.

progress? They conquered basically the Asian Pacific. Yes, they lost to the USA, but it's the literally the USA lmao. And the USA still could not conquer them, the Japanese navy was basically defeated in WW2, but the army and airforce was still intact and Japan was not invaded. Germany and Italy however, lol

---

Northern Africa resisted colonization for hundreds of years and eventually lost. Colonization started in the 1400s with Portugal and ended sometime in the late 1800s with Spain and France taking it all over. Dozens of wars were fought during this period with the europeans taking bits and pieces, each time the local kingdoms fighting back.

But these dozens of wars could be waged because North Africa was so close. North Africa was highly prized though, so the Europeans were willing the pay the price for it because the returns were so great, both in resources and trade. Also it didn't have diseases they aren't used to. But North Africa was probably closest technologically to western Europe at that time. Them or Anatolia.

To conquer Japan similarly, the travel costs would have been immense. Spain would have been best positioned owning the Philippines at the time. But even Manilla to Tokyo is 2000 miles. Transporting 10s of thousands of men at that time would have been really expensive. They would have been in poor fighting shape right off the ships, probably have to take over Okinawa or something. So while 1580 Spain could take 20k men to conquer Japan, why when that same 20k men could take over all of mexico and southwest US and cuba and more. And they have everything made out of gold and these awesome spices and great places for agriculture.

So why Australia? Because the calculations say its easy pickings. You didn't need to land an army of 10,000 half a continent away. You need to deal with 100-300 people at a time at most. With enough land certainly there was some stuff of value in there. The town of 1000 settlers with some muskets was able to more than defend themselves.

China I am sure if they thought by say 1880 that they truly could conquer china, they would have. Europe had superior weaponry and navy by far, so they could capture and control port cities. But to invade and conquer mainland china wouldn't have been seen as possible. Qing china had 430M people by 1850. Willing to get millions of people high on opium so they can get some silk.

---

Uhhh

It was
---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

progress? They conquered basically the Asian Pacific. Yes, they lost to the USA, but it's the literally the USA lmao. And the USA still could not conquer them, the Japanese navy was basically defeated in WW2, but the army and airforce was still intact and Japan was not invaded. Germany and Italy however, lol

Japan was never going to be able to conquer China. It honestly sounds like trolling at this point because you completely ignored my post being about the difficulty of conquering China and talked about other things instead. Japan tried turning China into a colony, it couldn't. The end of the war featured the Soviets ripping through the best remnants of the Japanese army. This idea the US couldn't conquer them is preposterous and ignores why they didn't want to do a ground invasion. Also the air force was resorting to kamikaze attacks due to a lack of skilled pilots and viable planes. They had nothing of note at that point.

---

KILBOTz posted...

Northern Africa resisted colonization for hundreds of years and eventually lost. Colonization started in the 1400s with Portugal and ended sometime in the late 1800s with Spain and France taking it all over. Dozens of wars were fought during this period with the europeans taking bits and pieces, each time the local kingdoms fighting back.

But these dozens of wars could be waged because North Africa was so close. North Africa was highly prized though, so the Europeans were willing the pay the price for it because the returns were so great, both in resources and trade. Also it didn't have diseases they aren't used to. But North Africa was probably closest technologically to western Europe at that time. Them or Anatolia.

To conquer Japan similarly, the travel costs would have been immense. Spain would have been best positioned owning the Philippines at the time. But even Manilla to Tokyo is 2000 miles. Transporting 10s of thousands of men at that time would have been really expensive. They would have been in poor fighting shape right off the ships, probably have to take over Okinawa or something. So while 1580 Spain could take 20k men to conquer Japan, why when that same 20k men could take over all of mexico and southwest US and cuba and more. And they have everything made out of gold and these awesome spices and great places for agriculture.

So why Australia? Because the calculations say its easy pickings. You didn't need to land an army of 10,000 half a continent away. You need to deal with 100-300 people at a time at most. With enough land certainly there was some stuff of value in there. The town of 1000 settlers with some muskets was able to more than defend themselves.

China I am sure if they thought by say 1880 that they truly could conquer china, they would have. Europe had superior weaponry and navy by far, so they could capture and control port cities. But to invade and conquer mainland china wouldn't have been seen as possible. Qing china had 430M people by 1850. Willing to get millions of people high on opium so they can get some silk.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. You have acknowledged that colonization wasn't as simple as a white man with a gun appearing at your country and easily conquering your country.

ssjevot posted...

Japan was never going to be able to conquer China. It honestly sounds like trolling at this point because you completely ignored my post being about the difficulty of conquering China and talked about other things instead. Japan tried turning China into a colony, it couldn't. The end of the war featured the Soviets ripping through the best remnants of the Japanese army. This idea the US couldn't conquer them is preposterous and ignores why they didn't want to do a ground invasion. Also the air force was resorting to kamikaze attacks due to a lack of skilled pilots and viable planes. They had nothing of note at that point.

So you are telling me that they lost WW2 which I already said? Mainland Japan was not invaded because the only country that could invade it was the USA and they avoided doing that entirely. Germany is overrated af and was conquered by the end of the war while Japan wasn't and still had an army and air force at least. China would''ve never beaten Japan, maybe drive them out of the Chinese mainland at best but that's status quo at that point. USSR and the UK would have defeated Germany and caused the German government to capitulate.

---

CoolMaskGuy posted...

Because the Euros feared the samurai.

This. The thousand folds of the katana makes it far superior to anything the Europeans had, one swing of the mighty blade could cut clean through their warships.

---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

I know I've seen you make this topic before

Wherethisfeom posted...

You made this topic before.

Do guys think they're smart by pointing stuff like this out?

Who gives a shit. Obv people want to discuss it still.

---

JBaLLEN66 posted...

Germany is overrated af and was conquered by the end of the war while Japan wasn't and still had an army and air force at least.

You are out of your mind if you think Japan was remotely on the level of Germany during World War II. They were worse in basically every aspect. Germany had cutting edge technology beyond anything the allies had at the end of the war. Japan had just started developing radar in the middle of the war and all their weapons were massively outdated by the end (the Zero was a decent fighter at the start, but completely outdated by the end).

Also stop saying they had an air force left. They didn't. They had to resort to using training planes for suicide runs because they had a lack of fuel, ammo, pilots, and actual combat planes.

---

because they had samurai. :v who do you think would win in a fight? A samurai or a pilgrim?

The US kind of colonized Japan after World War II and we still have our armies there to this day

---

Lord_Shadow posted...

The US kind of colonized Japan after World War II and we still have our armies there to this day

We did it in the late 19th century too.
---

Why do you keep remaking this topic?

---

GreatGoomba posted...

Why do you keep remaking this topic?

To weed out the subtle racists on CE, I bet you the same posters will have some nazi germany worship lol

---

Lord_Shadow posted...

The US kind of colonized Japan after World War II and we still have our armies there to this day

LanaDurant posted...

We did it in the late 19th century too.

lmao this is ridiculous

---