No Japanese exodus from Korea after independence?

tormsen · Jun 22, 2012

Before independence, there were some 650,000 Japanese living in the Korean peninsula. In 1945-46, this population was forcibly deported from both North and South Korea, an ethnic cleansing that achieved little notice overseas. These consisted of a major part of the economic and administrative elite, top level bureaucrats and many professionals and businessmen, and in their exodus their places were largely taken over by locals.

Is it possible to avoid this, and what would be the effects? There was an understandable desire by the Koreans to rid themselves of their colonial overlords and put the reins of their country firmly into local hands. But it seems like the loss of professional expertise would have represented a significant loss. Perhaps if someone other than Syngman Rhee had taken over the country, that might have helped. Certainly someone more like the later president Park Chung Hee (former member of the IJA) would have been more inclined to make use of these hapless former elites than simply expel them.

American and/or Soviet pressure against deportation might have been instrumental as well. Stalin had previously forced the Korean inhabitants of the Russian Far East to relocate to Central Asia, but later many of these who joined the Communist Party were mobilized in order to take over administrative jobs in North Korea. Perhaps a renewed wave of paranoia about these internal exiles might prompt Stalin to nix that plan, forcing the Soviet authorities to rely on the former Japanese administrators further and pressure the North Koreans not to deport them. Perhaps a broadly similar set of circumstances could cause the Americans to act in a similar way in the South.

Over time, what would be the likely effects? On the negative side, there would be a lot of tensions for a long time, particularly if the Japanese were able to recover some of their status through working for the new governments. Social troubles could emerge. On the positive side, the professional expertise would be helpful, and perhaps there would be an earlier rapproachment between the South and Japan, leading to more economic cooperation and investment.

Any thoughts? This just came up while I was researching an unrelated topic, but it intrigued me a bit.

Devolved · Jun 22, 2012

tormsen said:
Before independence, there were some 650,000 Japanese living in the Korean peninsula. In 1945-46, this population was forcibly deported from both North and South Korea, an ethnic cleansing that achieved little notice overseas. These consisted of a major part of the economic and administrative elite, top level bureaucrats and many professionals and businessmen, and in their exodus their places were largely taken over by locals.

Is it possible to avoid this, and what would be the effects? There was an understandable desire by the Koreans to rid themselves of their colonial overlords and put the reins of their country firmly into local hands. But it seems like the loss of professional expertise would have represented a significant loss. Perhaps if someone other than Syngman Rhee had taken over the country, that might have helped. Certainly someone more like the later president Park Chung Hee (former member of the IJA) would have been more inclined to make use of these hapless former elites than simply expel them.

American and/or Soviet pressure against deportation might have been instrumental as well. Stalin had previously forced the Korean inhabitants of the Russian Far East to relocate to Central Asia, but later many of these who joined the Communist Party were mobilized in order to take over administrative jobs in North Korea. Perhaps a renewed wave of paranoia about these internal exiles might prompt Stalin to nix that plan, forcing the Soviet authorities to rely on the former Japanese administrators further and pressure the North Koreans not to deport them. Perhaps a broadly similar set of circumstances could cause the Americans to act in a similar way in the South.

Over time, what would be the likely effects? On the negative side, there would be a lot of tensions for a long time, particularly if the Japanese were able to recover some of their status through working for the new governments. Social troubles could emerge. On the positive side, the professional expertise would be helpful, and perhaps there would be an earlier rapproachment between the South and Japan, leading to more economic cooperation and investment.

Any thoughts? This just came up while I was researching an unrelated topic, but it intrigued me a bit.

I live in South Korea and I don't think most Koreans wanted a single one of their former Japanese overlords in their country after 1945.

Things are more relaxed these days but among the older generation the leagacy of bitterness and humiliation they suffered was simply too great to keep a sizeable Japanese population in Korea.

Also remember that Korea is one of the most homogeneous societies on Earth and they traditionally view their land as being one whole with one people and one large family. You could call it racism but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they just wanted to be left alone in their own land.

The Koreans were forced to change their names to Japanese names, forced to bow in the street to Japanese and had much of their long history deliberately destroyed. Imagine all the not very nice things the British did during 800 years of rule in Ireland and condense it into 35 years and you get an idea of Japanese rule in Korea.

No, the Japanese ruling elite,their landowners and their officials cannot stay. It was only in 1998 that the ban on Japanese books and movies was lifted in South Korea! Finally the dispute between Japan and South Korea over the rocky islet of Dokdo/Takeshima is the only foreign policy issue on which North and South Korea are united.

WhatIsAUserName · Jun 22, 2012

tormsen said:
Before independence, there were some 650,000 Japanese living in the Korean peninsula. In 1945-46, this population was forcibly deported from both North and South Korea, an ethnic cleansing that achieved little notice overseas. These consisted of a major part of the economic and administrative elite, top level bureaucrats and many professionals and businessmen, and in their exodus their places were largely taken over by locals.

Is it possible to avoid this, and what would be the effects? There was an understandable desire by the Koreans to rid themselves of their colonial overlords and put the reins of their country firmly into local hands. But it seems like the loss of professional expertise would have represented a significant loss. Perhaps if someone other than Syngman Rhee had taken over the country, that might have helped. Certainly someone more like the later president Park Chung Hee (former member of the IJA) would have been more inclined to make use of these hapless former elites than simply expel them.

American and/or Soviet pressure against deportation might have been instrumental as well. Stalin had previously forced the Korean inhabitants of the Russian Far East to relocate to Central Asia, but later many of these who joined the Communist Party were mobilized in order to take over administrative jobs in North Korea. Perhaps a renewed wave of paranoia about these internal exiles might prompt Stalin to nix that plan, forcing the Soviet authorities to rely on the former Japanese administrators further and pressure the North Koreans not to deport them. Perhaps a broadly similar set of circumstances could cause the Americans to act in a similar way in the South.

Over time, what would be the likely effects? On the negative side, there would be a lot of tensions for a long time, particularly if the Japanese were able to recover some of their status through working for the new governments. Social troubles could emerge. On the positive side, the professional expertise would be helpful, and perhaps there would be an earlier rapproachment between the South and Japan, leading to more economic cooperation and investment.

Any thoughts? This just came up while I was researching an unrelated topic, but it intrigued me a bit.

With North Korea, I think it's much more easier for the USSR to rely on those Communist Korean emigres than elements of the Japanese colonial administration, because Stalin can count more on the loyalty of the former than the latter. I guess, if Stalin was worried he could rely on the Japanese, but after he dies, somebody is going to realize that it wasn't such a smart move. As for South Korea, I don't see Douglas MacArthur or any US official doing so. The whole point about democratizing Japan was breaking down the former imperial order, so keeping the colonists in place seems counter-productive.

Besides, even if the Japanese aren't forcibly repatriated, would they necessarily want to stay in Korea? Unless they're being protected outright, wouldn't they feel more comfortable in their home country? That alone is going to lower the number of people who stay behind.

phoenix7846 · Jun 22, 2012

Yeah, this ain't impossible, considering how much of history seems impossible if you think about it, but it's damn near ASB territory I think. You live here, you know how nationalistic enough of the population can be, and that's of course the super toned down version. I think it was the 조선일보 that mentioned that they only just changed the word "race" in their oath for the army this year or last. Not to mention all the other xenophobia that's still latent here, and then you add in the post-independence hatred of the colonizers, it's damn hard to see them being allowed to stay, and I think they'd either be kicked out officially or just raged at by the general populace too.

Otis R. Needleman · Jun 22, 2012

Devolved said:
I live in South Korea and I don't think most Koreans wanted a single one of their former Japanese overlords in their country after 1945.

Things are more relaxed these days but among the older generation the leagacy of bitterness and humiliation they suffered was simply too great to keep a sizeable Japanese population in Korea.

Also remember that Korea is one of the most homogeneous societies on Earth and they traditionally view their land as being one whole with one people and one large family. You could call it racism but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they just wanted to be left alone in their own land.

The Koreans were forced to change their names to Japanese names, forced to bow in the street to Japanese and had much of their long history deliberately destroyed. Imagine all the not very nice things the British did during 800 years of rule in Ireland and condense it into 35 years and you get an idea of Japanese rule in Korea.

No, the Japanese ruling elite,their landowners and their officials cannot stay. It was only in 1998 that the ban on Japanese books and movies was lifted in South Korea! Finally the dispute between Japan and South Korea over the rocky islet of Dokdo/Takeshima is the only foreign policy issue on which North and South Korea are united.

Indeed. Spent 39 months in the ROK and speak the language. No way in hell would the Koreans have allowed the Japanese to stay. The average Korean HATED the Japanese, with good reason. That hatred's lasted a long time, especially with the older generations, but it got passed down, as well.

I remember going to an outdoor professional wrestling match in the ROK in the early 80's. One of the wrestlers was Japanese. When he was in the ring the other wrestlers on the card stood guard to keep little kids from throwing rocks at him.

Dathi THorfinnsson · Jun 22, 2012

Otis R. Needleman said:
Indeed. Spent 39 months in the ROK and speak the language. No way in hell would the Koreans have allowed the Japanese to stay.

No alive, anyway. Ethnic cleansing is bad, genocide is worse. Those are your two real options here, im afraid.

MarshalBraginsky · Jun 22, 2012

Devolved said:
I live in South Korea and I don't think most Koreans wanted a single one of their former Japanese overlords in their country after 1945.

Things are more relaxed these days but among the older generation the leagacy of bitterness and humiliation they suffered was simply too great to keep a sizeable Japanese population in Korea.

Also remember that Korea is one of the most homogeneous societies on Earth and they traditionally view their land as being one whole with one people and one large family. You could call it racism but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they just wanted to be left alone in their own land.

The Koreans were forced to change their names to Japanese names, forced to bow in the street to Japanese and had much of their long history deliberately destroyed. Imagine all the not very nice things the British did during 800 years of rule in Ireland and condense it into 35 years and you get an idea of Japanese rule in Korea.

No, the Japanese ruling elite,their landowners and their officials cannot stay. It was only in 1998 that the ban on Japanese books and movies was lifted in South Korea! Finally the dispute between Japan and South Korea over the rocky islet of Dokdo/Takeshima is the only foreign policy issue on which North and South Korea are united.

Wouldn't Japanese rule in Korea be more like German rule in Poland during WWII? There are some similarities between the Japanese colonial regime in Korea and the German occupation period in Poland in terms of brutality.

Osakadave · Jun 22, 2012

When visiting Seoul 20 some years ago, a drunken Korean informed me I was lucky not to be Japanese because he'd kill any Japanese person he met. That should give you an idea of the hatred.

This scenario, assuming that any sizeable population of Japanese try to stay, is going to get ugly really fast.

Devolved · Jun 22, 2012

Osakadave said:
When visiting Seoul 20 some years ago, a drunken Korean informed me I was lucky not to be Japanese because he'd kill any Japanese person he met. That should give you an idea of the hatred.

This scenario, assuming that any sizeable population of Japanese try to stay, is going to get ugly really fast.

I live in Seoul and I've seen many Korean men brawling in the street after having a few drinks. I've even had a 'situation' or two myself here.

They talk a good fight but they don't deliver. I think the Japanese visitor would have been safe!

Otis R. Needleman · Jun 23, 2012

MarshalBraginsky said:
Wouldn't Japanese rule in Korea be more like German rule in Poland during WWII? There are some similarities between the Japanese colonial regime in Korea and the German occupation period in Poland in terms of brutality.

The Japanese weren't as brutal physically. The Japanese didn't have concentration camps. They didn't deliberately put the Koreans on starvation rations. They took Koreans into the Kwantung Army. A few even became officers, like future ROK President Pak Chong-hui. The Japanese co-opted some Koreans into their occupation government. True, the Japanese tried to stamp out the Korean language but they must have realized it was a long-term no-go.

Believe the Germans were more brutal, overall. Concentration camps, slave laborers, short rations while plundering for Germany, taking suitable Polish children to be raised German, and the end goal eventually making their part of Poland German.

Kooluk Swordsman · Jun 23, 2012

Otis R. Needleman said:
The Japanese weren't as brutal physically. The Japanese didn't have concentration camps. They didn't deliberately put the Koreans on starvation rations. They took Koreans into the Kwantung Army. A few even became officers, like future ROK President Pak Chong-hui. The Japanese co-opted some Koreans into their occupation government. True, the Japanese tried to stamp out the Korean language but they must have realized it was a long-term no-go.

Believe the Germans were more brutal, overall. Concentration camps, slave laborers, short rations while plundering for Germany, taking suitable Polish children to be raised German, and the end goal eventually making their part of Poland German.

The Japanese pretty much enslaved Koreans during the war, experimented on them in Unit 731 (and probably other places), tried to erase their culture, treated them like dirt, nearly starved them out to feed the Home Islands during the war, forced them into mines or used them as cannon fodder, and there's probably some more.

But they're not as bad as the Germans?

Serious, people need to stop saying that. They were both horrific in their own way, just as bad as the other.

Tyr · Jun 23, 2012

The Koreans were forced to change their names to Japanese names,

Are you sure about this?
I hear this repeated a lot but from what I've read the complete opposite is true. Koreans were banned from changing their names to anything remotely resembling a Japanese name so they couldn't try and pass themselves off as Japanese.

tormsen · Jun 23, 2012

Tyr said:
Are you sure about this?
I hear this repeated a lot but from what I've read the complete opposite is true. Koreans were banned from changing their names to anything remotely resembling a Japanese name so they couldn't try and pass themselves off as Japanese.

Where did you read this? It's not true. Japanese imperial policy towards the Koreans was (at least in theory) based on the long-term goal of turning them into loyal Japanese citizens.

Anyway I can see the point people are raising. Still, I tend to view a lot of the anti-Japanese hatred, at least among the elites, as being invented after the fact. A lot of people who were really really pro-Japanese before the end of the war became really really anti-Japanese after their defeat. Many of the common people were happy, particularly the middle class and those associated with the independence movement, but the vast majority of people lives didn't actually change that much. They saw the taegukki flying and got swept along, and then the government was able to use the Japanese imperialist period for political gain. Not that the Japanese weren't horrible in their policies, though. It's just that a lot of people in the Korean elite who benefited from Japanese rule did a run about-face when the circumstances changed.

Devolved · Jun 23, 2012

tormsen said:
Where did you read this? It's not true. Japanese imperial policy towards the Koreans was (at least in theory) based on the long-term goal of turning them into loyal Japanese citizens.

Anyway I can see the point people are raising. Still, I tend to view a lot of the anti-Japanese hatred, at least among the elites, as being invented after the fact. A lot of people who were really really pro-Japanese before the end of the war became really really anti-Japanese after their defeat. Many of the common people were happy, particularly the middle class and those associated with the independence movement, but the vast majority of people lives didn't actually change that much. They saw the taegukki flying and got swept along, and then the government was able to use the Japanese imperialist period for political gain. Not that the Japanese weren't horrible in their policies, though. It's just that a lot of people in the Korean elite who benefited from Japanese rule did a run about-face when the circumstances changed.

I totally agree that collaboration was widespread. IMO more so than the resistance.

Many Koreans had fought with the Japanese in the war. Not all unwillingly and as often happens there was a lot of reinventing history. Most countries that have been under foreign occupation find it humiliating and want to rewrite the past to make themselves look better.

Clandango · Jun 23, 2012

I can see how the Koreans would be able to put aside there differences and blah blah. Turn the Japanese into forced labor. A fair many thousands of those who died from the atomic bombings were Korean slave laborers, so I don't think that the Japanese could complain too much about "having suffered enough" from two attacks.

WhatIsAUserName · Jun 23, 2012

Tyr said:
Are you sure about this?
I hear this repeated a lot but from what I've read the complete opposite is true. Koreans were banned from changing their names to anything remotely resembling a Japanese name so they couldn't try and pass themselves off as Japanese.

Those statements aren't necessarily contradictory. The name change policy didn't start until the 1930s, so perhaps they were banned from Japanese names from 1910-1930s.

democracy101 · Jun 27, 2012

Devolved said:
Also remember that Korea is one of the most homogeneous societies on Earth and they traditionally view their land as being one whole with one people and one large family. You could call it racism but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they just wanted to be left alone in their own land.

The Koreans were forced to change their names to Japanese names, forced to bow in the street to Japanese and had much of their long history deliberately destroyed. Imagine all the not very nice things the British did during 800 years of rule in Ireland and condense it into 35 years and you get an idea of Japanese rule in Korea.

It's even more humiliating for the country when you realize that the Japanese occupation was also the only time in Korean history in which the entire peninsula was under the political rule of a foreign state. Even the Mongols retained the Korean rulers, although they were forced to marry into the Mongol royal family.

Otis R. Needleman said:
Indeed. Spent 39 months in the ROK and speak the language. No way in hell would the Koreans have allowed the Japanese to stay. The average Korean HATED the Japanese, with good reason. That hatred's lasted a long time, especially with the older generations, but it got passed down, as well.

I remember going to an outdoor professional wrestling match in the ROK in the early 80's. One of the wrestlers was Japanese. When he was in the ring the other wrestlers on the card stood guard to keep little kids from throwing rocks at him.

My mother was born after the Korean War ended, and she still hates the Japanese for what they did during the occupation. From what I've heard and read, the resentment probably lasted for at least several decades after the Japanese left in 1945.

Kooluk Swordsman said:
The Japanese pretty much enslaved Koreans during the war, experimented on them in Unit 731 (and probably other places), tried to erase their culture, treated them like dirt, nearly starved them out to feed the Home Islands during the war, forced them into mines or used them as cannon fodder, and there's probably some more.

But they're not as bad as the Germans?

Serious, people need to stop saying that. They were both horrific in their own way, just as bad as the other.

Along with comfort women. Also, after the March 1st Movement in 1919, the Japanese tortured and/or executed thousands without trial. They also distorted Korean history in order to justify their rule by systematically compiling records and producing their own version, while relocating a large amount of artifacts to Japan. The Japanese also banned the Korean alphabet after 1938, and omitted any mention of Korean history in the school curriculum. Most of the structures around Gyeongbokgung, the main palace, were destroyed, and the General Government Building replaced the palace.

Devolved said:
I totally agree that collaboration was widespread. IMO more so than the resistance.

Many Koreans had fought with the Japanese in the war. Not all unwillingly and as often happens there was a lot of reinventing history. Most countries that have been under foreign occupation find it humiliating and want to rewrite the past to make themselves look better.

Yes, but it's also possible that the people who collaborated had no choice but to adopt to their situation.

WhatIsAUserName said:
Those statements aren't necessarily contradictory. The name change policy didn't start until the 1930s, so perhaps they were banned from Japanese names from 1910-1930s.

This is correct. Koreans were required to maintain Korean names from 1911-1939 in order to distinguish them from the Japanese. Also, until 1939, a significant amount of the population did not have a surname. The name change policy (Soshi-kaimei/Changssi-gaemyeong) was implemented in 1939, and it was strictly enforced to the point where rations were not handed out, students were expelled, and people were fired from their jobs if they did not adopt Japanese names.

In other words, although it might be possible for some Japanese to remain in Korea after 1945, the government might just make the atrocities and strict policies more widely known and put more pressure on the Japanese if they decide to stay.

scourge · Jun 27, 2012

If the Japanese stay in Korea after the war is over , it's gonna get extremely brutal.

Tongera · Jun 27, 2012

If the Japanese didn't leave, then i can see them being expelled like the Germans were from the Eastern Territories.

Arachnid · Jun 27, 2012

WhatIsAUserName said:
Those statements aren't necessarily contradictory. The name change policy didn't start until the 1930s, so perhaps they were banned from Japanese names from 1910-1930s.

That's what I heard, the policy switch was sometime during the 30's as part of a broader switch from "Koreans are a slave race" to "Koreans must be assimilated."