Hakka Nyin

ofcourse they will attack korea, it is very logical if japan attack korea because korea just few hundred kilometers away from japan, and japan must have foothold first in mainland asia. beside, if japan can annex korea first, japan can use korean as slave labor, to plant rice, supply logistic, and gain korean resources like coal and iron.

korea are right next door in the east side of china, only divided by river, it is more easier to invade china if japan already annex korea.

just like british wish to conquer mainland europe, which land will british possibly invade first? ofcourse, france.

nakamichi

Some posts on this thread make it sounds like Japan invade Korean/Taiwan dozen or so times. Pre-Meiji campaigns I know are Yamato Baekje's affair and Hideyoshi's campaign. Wako raids, but is it 'Japan invading Korea'?

Tokugawa Taiwan campaign looks like tail of Sengoku conflicts. Did bakufu after Ieyusu Tokugawa desire to invade Taiwan or Korea?

Note that I not try to make Japan look docile, but I do not see centuries of overseas military conflict of Japan trying to invade its neighbors.

Hideyoshi and Meiji ambitions different and separated by 300 years. My view in few words: Hideyoshi wanted stepping stone into China and/or maintain samurai. Meiji Imperial ambition.

Was surveying price of Korean land part of 甲午 policy (what to call in English?)? Or earlier?

Yes. Writings on Japanese influence like 甲午 policy make me think strong Japan amicable Korean puppet state was at one time Japanese desire ('securing' the 'dagger pointed at the heart of Japan'). But instead they turn to protectorate, then colonization. But too much debate and I cannot reach conclusion. Even Japanese role in 甲午 policy debated.

When did Meiji first consider colonizing (taking political control) of Korea?

Tak

A key topic was discussed by the Japanese diet in 1909 regarding the annexation of Korea. However, at the time, prominent politicians such as Ito Hirobumi, suggested it was not in Japan's best interest to annex Korea too quickly, and that the process must be gradual.

Ironically, he wasassassinated by a Korean nationalist in the same year, thus ending the life of a prominent voice to delay the annexation. Korea was annexed in the following year.

nakamichi

'Too quickly'? So at 1909 annexation was decided? Just issue of when?

When was annexation first seriously considered by Meiji Government?

If occurred after 1905 Japan–Korea Protectorate Treaty I won't be surprised. But also I won't be surprised if considered as far back when Japan forcing Korea into trade with gunboat diplomacy.

Tak

I am guessing by 1909, the Meiji government probably realized that annexation was inevitable. The Japan-Korea treaty of 1907 already turned over much of its administrative powers to the Japanese Resident General of Korea anyway.

By 1909, the topic of complete annexation became the highlight of the Japanese Diet. However, annexation at the time had no definite direction, and was split between Diet members. It was Ito Hirobumi's opinion that the annexation of Korea should be gradual. Given that he was probably the most experienced (in foreign relations) and prominent politician of the Japanese diet, chances are, he would have had his way should he lived.

Well, he was assassinated, in the same year. I am guessing his death provided a catalyst for an immediate annexation of Korea.

Cheesetorian

I'm referring to Japanese apologetics that uses Western aggression to why imperial Japan was formed.

My point is: "of course" they attacked Korea and tried to go further, it's because like the West (and other imperialist in NE Asia) they would attack, not because they were poor bystanders and victims goaded into war, but because they are active war mongers just like all else (and that's proven by their history even before arrival of Europeans).

Cheese.

Naomasa298

The Japanese had been at peace for 250 years before the Americans turned up and forced the unequal treaties on them. And they'd engaged in rather fewer foreign wars than saym the Chinese or the Americans had.

Cheesetorian

That's not really because they were "peaceful" people rather it was due to their geography: they lived on islands separated by large body of water.

To wage continuous war you'd have to have huge navies (a real blue navy at that, not the typical brown littoral/riparian ones often used in many Chinese warfare), which very few even then could wage ie Mongol invasion of Java or the Mongol invasion of Japan.

Took a lot of logistics/much higher risks vs. land warfare.

Speaking of that "peace", before Tokugawa's sealing of Japan, during the Imjin War, had Japanese navy been more ample and Ming support weak, they would've won.

Japanese were employed as mercenaries and pirates (not just by Asians but subsequent European colonial powers---proven by archaeological digs of sunken ships and drawings ie Boxer Codex as well as hundreds of textual proof)...they had exhumed a militaristic society/culture since before the late Heian period and obviously when opportunity arose, attempted to invade foreign countries (Korea and Okinawa by Satsuma during the sakoku period), and quickly adopted weapons of war when they saw fit (ie Portuguese musket).

Only reason why they had not participated in more wars of aggression overseas was because of geography, not culture or choice.

That's why all these historical grand warfare were kept within the archipelago, thankfully.

Cheese.

mariusj

I would argue that China was also relatively peaceful with surrounding Confucian states. Much of the Chinese wars were conducted against nomads rather than territorial conquest, especially after 1000AD.

Lucius

Everybody wanted a slice of China.

(wait for it)




And now, China has a slice of every market in the world.

Funny how things work out sometimes, huh?