Why did Japan invade China?

[Jason]

When they could have just traded with them? Why did they seize Korea even years before (the same idea applies)?

[Manic Impressive]

Imperialism and because they could. You're always going to get more money driving millions of people into slave labour than you will from simply trading with them. As a trade infers that the other party you trade with gets something, in an invasion you just take it.

[kashkin]

During the 20s and 30s the two main bourgeois parties in Japan were the Seiyukai and the Minseito. The former represented the more conservative and, reactionary and militarist elements of the ruling class while the Minseito represented the more liberal end of the bourgeoisie, they advocated control over China through political and economic imperialism as opposed to direct military rule/conquest.

During the early 20th century Japan experienced strong population growth. During this there was massive expansion in certain industries, however the lack of natural resources and land was a major problem. China offered a similar reward to Japan as the USSR offered Germany, large amounts of arable land and natural resources. Also, the government in the 30s was increasingly taken over by the military who proposed a strident militarist line. Even then, most did not want direct annexation or governance, IIRC the Japanese hoped to split China into small warlord states which could be kept under their thumb.

Another reason for the invasion of China was to improve its position as the hegemonic power in Asia, against the USSR (the battle of Khalkin Gol was only weeks before the invasion of Poland in '39) and America.

[Sixiang]

Kashkin's post is good. I just want to add a few details if they are any illuminating at all.

The Japanese imperialist militarists often made the same argument over and over again ever since the late 19th century: that Japan is a small country with few natural resources and China is vast. The imperialists in Japan also argued that they had some sort of unfair disadvantage in comparison to the U.S. and European imperialist nations. They basically said "We came into the imperialism game later than you guys, so we need to catch up." When Japan surrendered to the U.S., the emperor and prime minister gave speeches to the Diet. The emperor's speech was just a poem he wrote in elevated language that spoke of peace. The prime minister (who was related to the emperor) made a much more aggressive speech. He said that the West was unfairly criticizing Japan. The West was calling Japan some evil aggressive empire. But, he argued, Japan did not take Korea, Taiwan, China, the Philippines, Vietnam, or Burma from those peoples. He argued that they only took those places from the Europeans and Americans who had already taken them before they had. They made the argument that they were freeing Asia from Westerners who were destroying Eastern culture and traditions. They were correct in some respects. They did take the Philippines from the American, Vietnam from the French, Burma from the British, and the ports of China from the Western powers. Of course, this was hogwash because the Japanese were still in the wrong for being imperialist at all. I'm just saying what they argued.

When the US sent Commodore Mathew Perry to Japan to force it into trading with Japan, there was a period of civil war and division in Japan. Eventually, the militarist lower-level samurai won out, claiming they were on the side of the emperor, who had lost his rightful position from the evil Shogunate bureaucrats. The Meiji Restoration was a period of rapid industrialization in Japan to try to play the Westerners' game while still preserving Japanese traditions. Korea and Taiwan were taken by Japan in 1895 after the first Sino-Japanese war. That was a war between the crumbling Chinese imperial state, which was already heavily indebted to the Western powers and was having many domestic rebellions and economic problems. Korea had been a Chinese tributary state for centuries. Basically the Korean aristocracy paid the Chinese state tributes every year and allowed Chinese merchants to go back and forth in Korea in exchange for China leaving Korea alone to its domestic affairs while promising military support. China came to Korea's defense when Japan invaded, but Japan's military was much more technologically advanced and Western-trained than China's and easily took Korea. It also punished China by taking Taiwan at the same time.

China was under the heavy influence and bullying of the Western imperial powers when Japan tried to take it. It also was experiencing serious domestic problems as numerous warlords fought for territorial power over the country with the republican nationalist government. Japan argued it was bringing order to the divided country.

[Jason]

They made the argument that they were freeing Asia from Westerners who were destroying Eastern culture and traditions.



I doubt if they could destroy eastern culture and traditions, unless they promoted genocide (as they did with the Amerindians). Sounds like some BS excuse. It's like saying Chinese restaurants sprinkled all over the USA are turning it into China.




But, he argued, Japan did not take Korea, Taiwan, China, the Philippines, Vietnam, or Burma from those peoples. He argued that they only took those places from the Europeans and Americans who had already taken them before they had.


Actually, they had a good point here. You can even call western denunciation of Hitler's racism and imperalism as VERY hypocritical.


Imperialism and because they could. You're always going to get more money driving millions of people into slave labour than you will from simply trading with them. As a trade infers that the other party you trade with gets something, in an invasion you just take it.


True, but the US has been able to exploit the resources of many nations via "cloak and dagger" and trade (no need for invasion and conquest).