Japan

[Franconicus]

Unlike almost all other Asian countries, Japan did never become a European or AMerican colony. Why?

[Vidar]

I dont know much about the subject, myself but did find this

http://www.travelblog.org/Asia/Japan/blog-16112.html

Dont know if it helps

I seem to remember from history class that the japanese humiliated the Russians
In a War prior to WW1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War

Maybe by the time the dust had begun to settle from this, any potential aggressors, were not so sure if they wanted to take on Japan and also I guess they were busy elsewhere

Like I've said, Dont know much about it but Hopefully someone can fill in the Blanks

[King Kurt]

An interesting point Franc. It could be argued that Japan was an economic colony of the US in that they exerted a substanial influence over their economy from the late 1800's In fact it could be argued that Japan has only come out of the influence of the USA in the last 20 - 30 years as their economy has grown to be so strong.
As to why they did not become a conventional colony such as India or most of Africa, perhaps the answer was that they did not have the obvious attractions of those lands. Japan was a relatively advanced society - hence would have been difficult to conquer - and did not have the exploitable goods that other countries had such as gold, silver, coal, cotton, sugar etc etc. All they had was a population who wanted goods, so no need to conquer, just trade - colonisation by the backdoor.

[Marshal Murat]

Japan Westernized as SWIFTLY AS POSSIBLE. After Perry and the Black Ships, the Japanese realized what the Chinese and Koreans didn't. The West has the stuff, and rather than stay closed to them, we will get the stuff they got.

Japan bought in German and British naval officers to train the navy. British, German, American, Russian, French, and anyone else with any expertise in steel-rolling, ship-building, or goat farting.

[AntiochusIII]

They've got their super mechas to keep them safe.

Okay, bad, bad joke me

Truth is, any smart "non-colonial" country of the colonial days can quite comfortably try to play off one colonial power against another and hope to survive. It's a fine line and many fell but some -- thanks to circumstances, luck, or sheer effort of will -- made it intact 'til the World War eras.

Thailand played off France and Britain, asked Germany for technical help; back in the day they also invited the French in precisely just to counter the overbearing Dutch. Of course, that the only real reason they passed through that era uncolonized is because France and Britain wanted a buffer state between their respective SE Asian colonies is besides the point...

Japan itself however played a much bigger game. Once the Americans forced open the gates the formerly extremely isolationist Japanese accepted just about everything the West had to offer and revolutionized themselves in record time. The victory over poor Tzarist Russia was only icing on the cake, a direct result of the effort they put in for the second half of the 19th century more than anything else.

As a side note I find it quite amusing that the Japanese victory most likely pushed quite a few Russian soldiers over the edge about their view on their not-so-beloved Tzar and contributed to the Russian Revolution later on.

It's probably fortunate that the Tokugawa Shogunate was declining rapidly and the Emperor Meiji (or the new generation leaders behind him) was receptive of the Western ideas as something to "eliminate the old guard" and kept his newfound power.

[MilesGregarius]

Thailand played off France and Britain, asked Germany for technical help; back in the day they also invited the French in precisely just to counter the overbearing Dutch. Of course, that the only real reason they passed through that era uncolonized is because France and Britain wanted a buffer state between their respective SE Asian colonies is besides the point...

Thailand (Siam, at the time) has also been fortunate to have a series of excellent rulers in its Chakri Dynasty. Mongkut and Chulalongkorn in particular emphasized modernization, thereby giving Thailand the capacity to actively play off Britain and France against each other.

As a side note I find it quite amusing that the Japanese victory most likely pushed quite a few Russian soldiers over the edge about their view on their not-so-beloved Tzar and contributed to the Russian Revolution later on.

The humiliation of the Russo-Japanese War was a precipitating event for the Revolution of 1905. The Revolution of 1917 is often seen as an extension of that earlier failed revolt.

It's probably fortunate that the Tokugawa Shogunate was declining rapidly and the Emperor Meiji (or the new generation leaders behind him) was receptive of the Western ideas as something to "eliminate the old guard" and kept his newfound power.

Though the era is named after him, Emperor Meiji was just a figurehead like nearly all Japanese emperors going back centuries.

I've always felt that Japan's success was in no small part due to its ruling elite's samurai background. Japan, Korea, China, and Vietnam were all in largely the same position when first confronted by the Europeans. Although all four countries had adopted Confucian principles of government to some degree, in Korea, China, and Vietnam the Confucian scholar-bureaucrats had much fuller control than in Japan. While both bureaucrats and soldiers are inherently conservative, a warrior ethos recognizes the need for decisive action, something of which the Korean, Chinese and Vietnamise officials were constitutionally incapable.

Another factor contibuting to Japan's success was its essentially feudal nature. This decentralized power and gave ambitious lesser lights the prospect of seizing power. Thus, when the Tokugawa Shogunate showed itself incapable of adapting to the Western challenge, the likes of Saigō Takamori and Kido Takayoshi and their Satsuma-Chōshū alliance were waiting in the wings to initiate a new order. In the much more centralized Korea, China, and Vietnam no such alternate poles of power existed to challenge, or even simply reenergize, the ossified social/political order.

[Franconicus]

I am not sure about all of this.

I think there were some good reasons to make Japan a colony:
1) It was still left. Germany and for some other reasons the US were quite late in the colonialistic game. Esp. Germany then jumped on every train.
2) It was a huge market for industrial produced goods.
3) It had some nice "colonial" export goods.
4) It was a good base for the navy. Close to China and the Phillipines, controlling the eastern approach to Asia.

Maybe the Americans did not invade the country because they controlled the market anyway. Maybe the Germans did not dare because of the Americans (although the Americans were not that much of a threat before WW1).

[AntiochusIII]

Thailand (Siam, at the time) has also been fortunate to have a series of excellent rulers in its Chakri Dynasty. Mongkut and Chulalongkorn in particular emphasized modernization, thereby giving Thailand the capacity to actively play off Britain and France against each other.

True. Rama V is often recognized as one of Thailand's greatest modernizing kings, and also one of the last to actually have extensive power associated with a traditional monarch.

The modern King of Thailand still holds much more influence in his country than, say, the British royal family though.

Though the era is named after him, Emperor Meiji was just a figurehead like nearly all Japanese emperors going back centuries.

I'm quite aware of that -- I'm just not aware of who actually holds power after the fall of the Shogunate.

Another factor contibuting to Japan's success was its essentially feudal nature. This decentralized power and gave ambitious lesser lights the prospect of seizing power. Thus, when the Tokugawa Shogunate showed itself incapable of adapting to the Western challenge, the likes of Saigō Takamori and Kido Takayoshi and their Satsuma-Chōshū alliance were waiting in the wings to initiate a new order. In the much more centralized Korea, China, and Vietnam no such alternate poles of power existed to challenge, or even simply reenergize, the ossified social/political order.

Interesting. One could argue that the increasingly frequent and massive peasant revolts of the late Qing dynasty represents that element of change that tries to assert itself; after all the weird-ass ideas they've got are quite representative of the usual peasant revolts fare, from the European Peasants' War during the Reformation era to the various Communist revolutions: a new "utopia" versus the existing ancien regime.

It's probably true that the negatives of the centralized Confucian states turned against itself in that era, where the less centralized Japanese benefits from an existing ambitious ruling class not altogether tied too closely to the central authority of the Shogun. In Imperial China change has to come from the top, any change from the bottom equates to nothing less than changing the Mandate of Heaven itself. And the Chinese bureaucrats are notoriously reactionary at that.

I think there were some good reasons to make Japan a colony:
1) It was still left. Germany and for some other reasons the US were quite late in the colonialistic game. Esp. Germany then jumped on every train.
2) It was a huge market for industrial produced goods.
3) It had some nice "colonial" export goods.
4) It was a good base for the navy. Close to China and the Phillipines, controlling the eastern approach to Asia.

1) In my opinion, Germany's approach to colonialism has never been as aggressive as the powers that came before it. This is probably due to circumstances more than a genuinely different ideology, but the Germans didn't have that many bases nor many colonial troops to send around subjugating still-free native states like the French, British, or even the Dutch could. To use a Thailand example again German engineers were quite active there as the Thais invited them in to, well, reduce the complete reliance on France and Britain (more of the latter really) for their modernizing efforts.

The USA prior to Hawaii and the Spanish-American War era was not very imperialistic as well. It preferred trade to conquest for quite a long time. By the time it might entertained the idea of expanding its nascent colonial empire Japan had already modernized to the point where a US conquest will not be so easy.

The Americans weren't actually very good at the whole colonizing business anyway.

2) Trade sufficed. In fact the very modernizing efforts of Meiji Japan probably made it a larger and more active market than it would've been as a colonial backwater. Don't get me wrong, various European countries at that era probably liked the idea of ruling over Japan or any other colonial possessions really, but to assert that plan is different; especially since Japan, being near to China, was in the interest of many nations. If one made the move I'm sure another would counter that and vice versa. The 19th century was not the era where large colonial wars between the Great Powers happen that often anymore.

3/4) same as 2.

[Gimli]

I think that one reason that Japan avoided colonization was that they were very eager to trade and modernize themselves (much like the Burmese [Thais]) and it was just EASIER to enconomically "colonize" them as a trading partner. Also, they have a SERIOUS lack of raw material/land mass when compared to Asian mainland. Someone brought up the point that America wasn't so good at colonizing. True. Being a former colony might have had something to do with that!

[AntiochusIII]

much like the Burmese [Thais]

Those two are different.

The Burmese went through a series of wars with Great Britain and was summarily crushed and colonized. Arguably Burmese military might compared to their local rivals made them a little overconfident. The Thais, their biggest local rivals (the rivalry continues today actually, but most of the world now prefers diplomatic contact with Thailand due to the key reason that the current Burmese government is a bunch of militarist dictatorial anti-Democracy lowlifes...) survive through the colonial era uncolonized but losing various border provinces and vassals appeasing the colonial powers France and Great Britain.

Also, Japan's trading value does not lie in its rich natural resources (like Africa) but in its "luxury products" like Chinaware and stuff. Those things were popular back in the day.

[Gimli]

Those two are different.

The Burmese went through a series of wars with Great Britain and was summarily crushed and colonized. Arguably Burmese military might compared to their local rivals made them a little overconfident. The Thais, their biggest local rivals, survive through the colonial era uncolonized but losing various border provinces and vassals appeasing the colonial powers France and Great Britain.

True enough... I guess that my main point (though most likely horribly misworded... ) was that both the Thais and the Japanese WANTED to become more modernized (for a while at least!) I had not considered the importance of said "luxury products" and their impact on trade at that time. Good call!

[nokhor]

an interpretation that i've come across that i haven't seen here yet was the fact that china was simply the motherlode. it had so much in terms of resources and wealth that the great powers were spending most of their power and influence in preventing any other great power from gaining absolute domination over china. japan was simply irrelevant. the primary point of perry and the amercian fleet forcing japan to have trade and contact with them had nothing to do with japan itself. it was so the americans could basically use japan as a waystation on the way to china. so while china had to bear the brunt of colonial infiltration from pretty much all the major powers, and could only fend them off haphazardly, japan being a backwater relative to china, in terms of wealth and population could modernize without the extreme pressures that china faced, because none of the powers cared about it as much with china right across the sea.