AHC:Europe Colonizes Japan

Have a European power "colonize" Japan. By Colonize I mean have them own most or all of Japan for an extended period of time...lets say half a century.
 
Have a European power "colonize" Japan. By Colonize I mean have them own most or all of Japan for an extended period of time...lets say half a century.

What's your POD and which century are we targeting here?

The problem is that this is nearly impossible after 1600 due to Japan being a modern urbanized nation. Europeans could only completely subjugate places with much smaller population densities than Europe, and those who were otherwise easily divided. After the Sengoku Jidai, Japan is a unified nation and won't get split like India and is much stronger than the Africans.

However before 1600 the Europeans are only just getting into gear, and most over the Americas which are devoid of meaningful resistance.

So there is only a very small window of opportunity where say a European country gets very advanced in their gunboat techniques and then sails to Japan right as the Sengoku Jidai is coming to a close. The country is prevented from unifying and instead the warlord clans are propped up by European guns, and eventually become protectorates.
 
The problem is that this is nearly impossible after 1600 due to Japan being a modern urbanized nation. Europeans could only completely subjugate places with much smaller population densities than Europe, and those who were otherwise easily divided. After the Sengoku Jidai, Japan is a unified nation and won't get split like India and is much stronger than the Africans.

Bengal? Punjab? These were population dense, urban, wealthy states. If the Europeans have naval supremacy, and they do, then they can win. The British lost battle after battle in their early Indian colonisation, but they had the constant advantage that they could ship out a defeated army before it became a rout, and when it was close, they could bring in reinforcements faster. Besides, Japan certainly wasn't a unified state before the Meiji restoration, with most power lying with each domain.
 
Bengal? Punjab? These were population dense, urban, wealthy states. If the Europeans have naval supremacy, and they do, then they can win. The British lost battle after battle in their early Indian colonisation, but they had the constant advantage that they could ship out a defeated army before it became a rout, and when it was close, they could bring in reinforcements faster. Besides, Japan certainly wasn't a unified state before the Meiji restoration, with most power lying with each domain.

The Indians were divided. They had never been a true nation, and thus divide and conquer was used effectively against them.

While Japan may not have had a strong state before the reforms, they did have a strong sense of the unified nation. And if there's one thing that makes controlling a piece of territory nearly impossible, it's local nationalism. European empires learned this the hard way, from Napoleon to Ho Chi Minh.

Also not only did Japan have high population density, but it was also fairly well developed. Even right before Perry's black ships, Japan had a high urbanization rate.

It is because of this that the world-eating Europeans couldn't touch Japan OTL.

Thus, the only way for colonization to happen is before the modern era and before the national identity of Japan is cemented.
 
Last edited:
Have a European power "colonize" Japan. By Colonize I mean have them own most or all of Japan for an extended period of time...lets say half a century.

Napoleon III intervenes in the Austro-Prussian War resulting in a quick Prussian defeat and a bolstering of the French Empire. As a result the French are much less willing to accept the defeat of their forces in Korea in November and are much more receptive to American overtures to launch a much larger joint punitive campaign against Korea. With the French and the Americans back in Korea in force and making significant gains, the Russians send their own force into Korea to make sure that in the inevitable peace deal Korea is opened to them as well. By mid 1867 Korea is forced to sign a humiliating peace treaty that opens up Korea to French, American, and Russian trade as well as allow for French missionary efforts. As a result of being more heavily involved in Asia, the French Empire becomes more involved with the Tokugawa Shogunate than they were in OTL, to the point that when the Boshin War breaks out the French aren't only arming the Shogunate, they are also contributing troops. The Meiji Restoration is prevented as a result and the Shogunate becomes increasingly reliant on the French to keep it in power, resulting in it becomes a vassal of the French Empire. A decade or so later a popular rebellion in Japan is quashed, the Shogunate is dissolved and the various feudal domains become direct vassals of the French Empire with (by this time) Napoleon IV imitating Queen Victoria's becoming Empress of India and taking he title Emperor of Japan.
 
Last edited:
Napoleon II intervenes in the Austro-Prussian War resulting in a quick Prussian defeat and a bolstering of the French Empire. As a result the French are much less willing to accept the defeat of their forces in Korea in November and are much more receptive to American overtures to launch a much larger joint punitive campaign against Korea. With the French and the Americans back in Korea in force and making significant gains, the Russians send their own force into Korea to make sure that in the inevitable peace deal Korea is opened to them as well. By mid 1867 the Korean Empire is forced to sign a humiliating peace treaty that opens up Korea to French, American, and Russian trade as well as allow for French missionary efforts. As a result of being more heavily involved in Asia, the French Empire becomes more involved with the Tokugawa Shogunate than they were in OTL, to the point that when the Boshin War breaks out the French aren't only arming the Shogunate, they are also contributing troops. The Meiji Restoration is prevented as a result and the Shogunate becomes increasingly reliant on the French to keep it in power, resulting in it becomes a vassal of the French Empire. A decade or so later a popular rebellion in Japan is quashed, the Shogunate is dissolved and the various feudal domains become direct vassals of the French Empire with (by this time) Napoleon IV imitating Queen Victoria's becoming Empress of India and taking he title Emperor of Japan.

While that sounds very fine up to the point of direct vassalage. While they can be dependent, the shogunate wouldn't sign away their sovereignty, and a popular rebellion could not be squashed. Also a foreigner who is not a descendent of the Yamato dynasty line can never be emperor. It just does not mean the same thing as the other imperial titles in the world.

How about this:
The clans fail to unite Japan, and the shogunate dissolves away in 1600, with Japan never being reunited. When the French show up, they do what the British did in India and vassalize individual daimyo, one at a time. It is conceivable for a Bonaparte to take the title of shogun once France has united Japan under their hegemony, but then the French would have to keep the Emperor in at least a ceremonial position. This should make it possible.
 
While that sounds very fine up to the point of direct vassalage. While they can be dependent, the shogunate wouldn't sign away their sovereignty

The Shogun would never intend to sign away Japanese sovereignty, but dependence upon the French to keep the Shogunate in power would ultimately lead de facto vassalage even if it doesn't lead to de jure vassalage.

a popular rebellion could not be squashed.

The Boxer Rebellion, the Sepoy Rebellion, the Philippine–American War, and most other anti-colonial rebellions of the era would argue otherwise. The rebels would be hopelessly outclassed by the French military, which would likely be supported by the Shogun and feudal domains that have become reliant on the French.
 
From what I gathered, colonisation works best when the coloniser brings something to the table.

Like in India, French Africa, it didn't go well because it was mostly exploitation. On the other hand there was much less resentment in Hong Kong, Djibouti or Indochine where the coloniser brought infrastructure and a more "equal" relationship (or getting out a former coloniser, like Ho Chi Minh said, "better smell the shit of the French than eat the shit of the Chinese")

So, the French could accelerate the Meiji, or pull a Meiji on Japan (depending on PoD), as well as putting good infrastructure, they could hold the land. But it would be a more equal relationship than in other colonies, with mostly local rule. This can be helped by the fascination France (and Western Europe) had for Japanese art at the time, showing them as something else than [insert local racial slur].
 
Napoleon II intervenes in the Austro-Prussian War resulting in a quick Prussian defeat and a bolstering of the French Empire. As a result the French are much less willing to accept the defeat of their forces in Korea in November and are much more receptive to American overtures to launch a much larger joint punitive campaign against Korea. With the French and the Americans back in Korea in force and making significant gains, the Russians send their own force into Korea to make sure that in the inevitable peace deal Korea is opened to them as well. By mid 1867 the Korean Empire is forced to sign a humiliating peace treaty that opens up Korea to French, American, and Russian trade as well as allow for French missionary efforts.

Napoleon II died in 1832 IOTL, while the Austro-Prussian War and the French campaign against Korea occurred in 1866. Additionally, the Korean Empire did not exist until 1897.

Regardless, Napoleon III was preoccupied with the French intervention in Mexico from 1861-7, as well as consolidating the country's possessions within (East and North) Africa, Vietnam, and Cambodia around the same time, not to mention extending influence in Italy and China as well. The French military's activities in Korea were also minimal, as limited knowledge of topography and ocean currents forced them to be confined to Ganghwa Island, not to mention that French diplomacy occurred without the monarch's backing, and the war technically fulfilled the original French objective (punishing the Korean court for executing missionaries). As a result, it wouldn't make sense for France to send more troops to Joseon just to obtain marginal trading rights, as Chinese/Japanese ports and trading routes remained far more profitable due to geographical considerations.
 
Last edited:
Put this article through Google Translate; it does the original justice. Basically: yes, Japan was highly developed by preindustrial standards in 1850, but its success still boils down to decisions that could have gone the other way. So put a POD in 1858: Japan drags its feet on the treaty with the US, and eventually the UK steps in, bringing the opium trade. This leads to civil unrest that makes it hard to levy taxes, so Japan takes foreign loans that it can't pay. This gives foreign powers an excuse to step in, so by 1880 they carve up Japan, mainly into British and American spheres of influence. Russia gets Hokkaido, Germany and France get tiny zones (maybe Kyushu).
 
The Indians were divided. They had never been a true nation, and thus divide and conquer was used effectively against them.

Your analysis only works if you apply the anachronistic concept of "Indians" to the place. The Indians didn't exist at this point in time. The Bengalis certainly did, and they were a united strong state. They were wealthy. They were urbanised. The fact that you're bringing up the Vietnamese as an example when they certainly got colonised shows the hollowness to your argument. Heck, China had as strong a national identity as anyone and they were completely subjugated by the West. The only thing that stopped that country being carved up was the Americans and the Open Door Policy.
 
Your analysis only works if you apply the anachronistic concept of "Indians" to the place. The Indians didn't exist at this point in time. The Bengalis certainly did, and they were a united strong state. They were wealthy. They were urbanised.
And they had a highly-centralised system of government, with rulers of [a few generations back] foreign origin, within which the British -- having defeated those rulers' army -- could quite easily step in as substitutes for the previous regime.
 
Threads like these are always hilarious because of the biased attitude towards the plausability. People like Japan so the idea of someone conquering it is horrific and ergo unfathomable, but there's no reason Japan would be any harder to conquer than the Indian states the British conquered. Sure, people are arguing that India wasn't unified, but then neither was Europe, does that mean Europe would be easy to conquer? Many Indian states were unified Sultanates and Kingdoms yet they were still conquered. Many were wealthy and technologically advanced too.

Japan can be conquered, it just requires the incentive and the power. The Portuguese and Dutch would be a good start.
 
Not to shamelessly plug, but in my TL I start with the death of Oda Nobunaga and to a lesser extent Toyotomi Hideyoshi. If your trying to extend the Sengoku Jidai you have to kill Nobunaga early. If there isn't a leader who can get the ball rolling and a talented successor to finish you still could see a divided Japan for a longer period of time. However, the devil would be in the details of how do you keep one Daimyo from being too strong when you have several serious candidates.

Even then the "colonization" would largely result in supporting a Daimyo or two and maybe trying to gain influence over them. You don't have really distinct identities you could play off to divide the population unless they try to create an expanded sense of regionalism, like the people of Kyushu being distinct from the people of Shikoku.
 
Aside from the fact Japan was at the same technological and political level as most of Europe for most of the time period the two have been in contact there's the little fact that people seem to forget is that Japan had ALOT of guns (at one point Japan had more guns than all of Europe combined) and more importantly the indigenous industry to build them and fix them; additionally there's the fact that there is zero reason for Europe to want to colonize Japan, it has very little in the way of natural resources, it's not strategically important, it's not useful for trade and by the time in the late 19th century when some of the European powers were establishing colonies for prestige reasons it was far to late for them to ever hope to colonize Japan.
 
You don't have really distinct identities you could play off to divide the population unless they try to create an expanded sense of regionalism, like the people of Kyushu being distinct from the people of Shikoku.

Kanto vs. Kansai?

Does Japan's sense of unified nationhood go far back, or is it a recent exceptionalist myth, of the kind that proliferate in many modern nation-states?
 
People like Japan so the idea of someone conquering it is horrific and ergo unfathomable, but there's no reason Japan would be any harder to conquer than the Indian states the British conquered.

Comparing Japan and India, Japan was much less wealthy and populous than India was at the time of European colonialism, making them a less desired target. The Europeans needed, and got, only a few trading ports / fuelling stations in Japan.

The other difference would be that the British conquered India with mainly Indian soldiers. Possibly if they got a source of Sepoys in or near Japan, they could have conquerd them. Maybe the British could colonize China first and use Chinese soldiers agaianst Japan (just like the Mongols did).

... Japan had ALOT of guns (at one point Japan had more guns than all of Europe combined) and more importantly the indigenous industry to build them and fix them;
...
when some of the European powers were establishing colonies for prestige reasons it was far to late for them to ever hope to colonize Japan.

Japan's guns were during The Sengoku period, the Tokugawas did away with most of them. In fact, there were a period when Japan was both physcially and mentally underarmed, a window period for foreign conquests.

As for prestige reasons... There was a time when the British entered wars with the same enemies over and over again for apparently no reason other than to save their prestige after they were first defeated (Zulus, Afghans, Boers, etc). Perhaps the Japanese could beat the British once to be seen as worth conquering.
 
Last edited:
Top