Discussion/argument: If America hadn't forced Japan to open up Japan wouldn't and couldn't have rampaged in Asia & Pacific in 20th century

[raharris1973]

Here's a topic for discussion and debate -

I'll assert that if America, through Commodore Perry's visits and intimidations, hadn't forced Japan to open up, Japan wouldn't and couldn't have rampaged in Asia & Pacific in 20th century as a militaristic power.

After all the Perry process led to the opening process, leading to the modernizing process, leading to the militarization process, the gunboat diplomacy and then colonialism imitation process, and eventually wars with China, Russia and the western empires.

If you remove the forced opening, Japan either remains contentedly closed, or somebody besides America may open up Japan later and perhaps in a different way. As a knock-on consequence of that, Japan may be colonized or subordinated rather than get a chance to modernize or militarize. In any case, a different opening likely causes enough knock-on consequences and butterfies diverging from OTL Japanese history, that Japan does not have the same opportunities to benefit from trade and contact with the west while not being overwhelmed by it, and then use those opportunities to exploit and build on Korean, and Chinese, and Russian weakness, strategic ties to Britain, two German bids for hegemony, American laziness, and so on to imagine that it can establish an imperium over China, let alone Greater East Asia and the Pacific.

---
The counter-argument I suppose would be that all the above could happen even Japan were forced to open to the world by another power, like Britain (the usual suspect), France, Russia, the Netherlands, or maybe even Germany later on. Another argument could be that its culture and society was uniquely primed to take advantage of western developments in a way almost all Asian and African societies were not.

See attached poll, respond to it. Articulate on the thoughts behind your vote in this thread!

Did Admiral Perry and his Uncle Sam give the world the 'gift' of Port Arthur, Tsushima Strait, Korean comfort women, the Nanjing Massacre, Pearl Harbor, or could Japan and the the rest of the world done bad all by itself. Was there more than one way to skin this cat? What thinks you?

 

[ChrisNuttall]

I don't have time to put together a long argument, but i think you might be right. Pretty much everyone else who might have opened Japan would do it with the intent of taking control, directly or indirectly, and wouldn't give the Japanese time to get organised and start learning from the outsiders.

Chris

 

[raharris1973]

Did Admiral Perry and his Uncle Sam give the world the 'gift' of Port Arthur, Tsushima Strait, Korean comfort women, the Nanjing Massacre, Pearl Harbor, or could Japan and the the rest of the world done bad all by itself. Was there more than one way to skin this cat? What thinks you?

Oh yeah, and the Boxer Rebellion and War, Double Ten revolution in China, warlord era, and Nationalist-Communist Civil War in China are knock-on consequences of the 19th century opening and militarization of Japan, while the post-WWII Chinese Civil War and Communist revolution, Korean War, Indochinese wars, and Communist insurgencies of the Philippines and Malaysia are knock-ons of Japan's 2nd quarter 20th century rampage (WWII Asia-Pacific).

 

[SenatorChickpea]

It would have bought Japan less than a decade. As my old supervisor, perhaps the world’s leading expert on Anglo-Japanese relations in the period put it to me, ‘if it hadn’t been Perry it would have been (Harry) Parkes.’

In other words, the Anglo-French expedition to China in the Second Opium War would have forcibly opened up Japan anyway.

Perry was a pimple on imperialism’s arse, not a world historic figure.

As to whether those extra few years would have changed whether it 'rampaged'- well, I mean obviously changing the balance of power in the 1850s and 1860s is going to have dramatic long-term effects in the 1930s. It feels extremely reductive to say that you avoid that by getting rid of Perry- it's like saying you can avoid Germany 'rampaging' by getting rid of Bismarck. In one sense it's probably true, but it's also a thoroughly meaningless statement.

 

[BBadolato]

The Short answer no, the long answer no. Japan's actions in WW2 can be explained as mission creep. Basically, Northern Indochina gets occupied because Japan wants to cut off Nationalist supply lines. That escalates into all of Indochina and the Oil Embargo. Failed negotiations with the U.S by November of 1940 goes to plans for the Strike South Plan and with Pearl Harbor, the true start of WW2 as far as I am concerned.

And on a much larger note, Japan's actions as an Imperialist power you can probably blame on the fact it was left in a position of either become an Empire on Western grounds and terms, try and stay neutral as some kind of battleground ala Korea, or end up as some kind of client state if not outright conquered by Western powers. That Japan did the first option even down to adopting the Japanese man's burden is no fault of Perry's.

But either way, @SenatorChickpea is right. Perry was immensely insignificant. Japan's tensions between the Shogun and the Emperor arguably can be said to have gone back far longer to at least the Kamakura Shogunate, or even just some of the internal problems of the Tokugawa Shogunate that were happening at the time have some origins that go back to least the aftermath of the Battle of Sekigahara so after 1600. All Perry did was the change timetable on those issues.