AHC: Have a Western country colonize Korea

samcster94

Banned
In OTL, Korea was colonized by Japan in 1910 and was never ruled by a Western power. I am no expert, so help me here, but what can be done to have any Western country colonize any part of Korea. Bonus points if it is a unified Korea.
 
There is functionally little difference between the Japanese colonization of Korea and the Belgian colonization of the Congo. Japan, like Thailand, out Europe'd Europe, and they were incredibly similar in their ambitions and goals... and approaches. Or in plainer terms: They were colonized by a Western nation.

Western is not geographically based, it's ideologically based.
 
There were plans pushed to bismarck to push for Korea to have a 'three way' sector ro watch over russians, japanese and chinese and people of the german colonail lobby pushed hard bismarck to send a mission to colonize korea so much scared the japanese...maybe bismarck allow it?
 

Marc

Donor
My preface: although the term is often used for that bit of history, it really is not quite the situation. Japan never colonized Korea; it was conquest and annexation of another sovereign state. It doesn't fall into the category of exploitative colonialism as typically practiced by some of the European powers in East Asia. It was of more of a Japanese attempt at assimilation, which has very different dynamics. A contemporary example might be how the United States treated the Kingdom of Hawaii versus its policies towards the Philippines. (And yes, the Japanese were routinely cruel and repressive in their pursuit of their goals.)

I won't speak to the morality of it all; its not really germane to this thread.

As to any Western nation being drawn to Korea. Outside of Russia - and they would have to make a move no later than 1880's - I can't imagine much interest in a country that doesn't have significant exploitative resources for the capital, military as well as economic. that would be needed.
Korea, politically, economically, and socially, is a Japan/China story, not much of a Western one (still is, the US is just being Japan's surrogate in the North Pacific)
 
You can't 'colonize' an East Asian Nation. Japan pretty much fulfills your criteria, as that was the only way it was gonna happen. East Asia, unlike most of Africa and the Americas, has always been pretty densely populated. There's no place to settle people to run the colony and to provide the basis for an upper class without some level of ethnic cleansing, which would immediately get red exclamation marks from the rest of East Asia.
 
For a part of Korea, both France and the US sent punitive expeditions after the Joseon killed a fair number of people from both countries, though they didn't lead to much, due to insufficient forces and lack of political will to impose anything too big. If either affair escalated a bit more, cessation of a treaty port probably would've been possible and that'd fulfill colonizing part of Korea, yes?

As for full annexation, that's a bit trickier due to Korea being important strategically for both Asian powers, the Qing and Japanese Empires (a knife pointed at the heart of Japan, after all). Both the Qing and Japan have to do significantly worse than OTL, that's a given, for Korea to be annexed in the 19th century.

Wikipedia says that one of the French commanders during the French invasion wanted to force the Joseon king to cede sovereignty to the French but there's no citation on that so I'm not going to count that. The main European that might colonize Korea would be Russia but they'd have to chew through Manchuria first to make it worthwhile logistically.

Let's say Qing China does worse in the Taiping Rebellion, the Tokugawa hold a bit better by playing the tozama daimyo off of each other (Satsuma and Choshu, for example) and the Boshin War stretches out longer, enough to impact modernization and industrialization overall. Russian influence in Korea grows paramount over the decades, leading to a faction of the court turning to the Japanese (as the Qing have been shown to be unable to protect themselves, let alone Korea) to counter Russian influence. Tensions escalate and eventually the two go to war over dominance in NE Asia. Due to weaker infrastructure and poorer economic backing, the Japanese concede and the Russians declare suzerainty over Manchuria and Korea, formerly annexing them. Can't see it lasting, though, since administration over a highly populated region on the other side of the continent requires either a good navy or the Trans-Siberian Railroad and will in both cases is horribly expensive, uprisings would be difficult to put down when the Polish are also militant, and Japan would have to be put down as a threat permanently or an alliance by the British, Germans, and Japanese would break the Russians due to how divided their forces would have to be.

There is functionally little difference between the Japanese colonization of Korea and the Belgian colonization of the Congo. Japan, like Thailand, out Europe'd Europe, and they were incredibly similar in their ambitions and goals... and approaches. Or in plainer terms: They were colonized by a Western nation.

Western is not geographically based, it's ideologically based.
Eh, the Belgian Congo's not that apt a comparison. French Vietnam, perhaps, but the Japanese weren't cutting off our hands for not making quota. Not that the Japanese weren't brutal in their own ways, especially later, but there's quite a few nuances to be found. Like with the matter of ethnic and cultural affairs, the Japanese tried to impose the 'same ancestor' root (they said they were the better branch, big surprise there) and assimilate the Koreans in a way that Europeans could not do in their overseas colonies (think Russia with the other Slavs, basically). They were much more hands-on than most colonial overlords, though that's a matter of proximity (more like French Algeria than French Vietnam) but that's a big difference between colonization by a European empire vs Japan for Korea (the former would have to be much more hands-off just due to bureaucratic costs) and that'd cascade into culture (the Japanese interpreting and rewriting parts of Korean history to fit a perpetual Japanese domination narrative, racial purity and superiority a la North Korean Juche would not be quite as dominant in culture without the Japanese use of it help assimilation), economics (industrialization under Japanese rule was quite different from the typical colonial economic policy under European overseas overlords and did define quite a bit of Korean economic history), and diplomatic relations (not having quite as much animosity towards Japan and not having anti-Chinese propaganda imposed would drastically alter Korea's relations with the rest of NE Asia).

As to any Western nation being drawn to Korea. Outside of Russia - and they would have to make a move no later than 1880's - I can't imagine much interest in a country that doesn't have significant exploitative resources for the capital, military as well as economic. that would be needed.
Korea, politically, economically, and socially, is a Japan/China story, not much of a Western one (still is, the US is just being Japan's surrogate in the North Pacific)
For the former point, Korea held a fair chunk of iron, coal, gold, and a strategic point in Asia that would help dominate trade and sealanes in NE Asia. Parts of Africa were colonized for less (though prestige in Africa was huge and it's much closer, so perhaps not the best comparison).

As for the latter, Korea being a 'Japan/China' story has only been true for less than 3/4th of a century in the past 1500+ years. Japan, after the fall of Baekje in the 5th century, maintained only trade relations with Korea and played no role politically or socially until the latter half of the 19th century, the Imjin War of the 17th century being the sole exception in 1500 years. Culture flowed from China to Korea to Japan, Japanese culture did not flow back to the mainland to a notable extent until the modern era.

It's like saying Vietnam is a China/Thai/Cambodian story.

You can't 'colonize' an East Asian Nation. Japan pretty much fulfills your criteria, as that was the only way it was gonna happen. East Asia, unlike most of Africa and the Americas, has always been pretty densely populated. There's no place to settle people to run the colony and to provide the basis for an upper class without some level of ethnic cleansing, which would immediately get red exclamation marks from the rest of East Asia.
That said about Vietnam, Vietnam's population was at least comparable to Korea's by the 1860s and it was still taken piecemeal by the French. Also a nation in the Sinosphere and a Qing tributary, also far from Europe, also not ethnically cleansed to any large extent.

Though Vietnam does have a great deal more regionalism due to geography, its main population centers were separated by a great deal of distance and so could be detached without too much trouble due to existing bureaucratic systems, and it was more tolerant of Christian missionaries than Joseon Korea (which played its role from what I've heard).
 
Last edited:

samcster94

Banned
My preface: although the term is often used for that bit of history, it really is not quite the situation. Japan never colonized Korea; it was conquest and annexation of another sovereign state. It doesn't fall into the category of exploitative colonialism as typically practiced by some of the European powers in East Asia. It was of more of a Japanese attempt at assimilation, which has very different dynamics. A contemporary example might be how the United States treated the Kingdom of Hawaii versus its policies towards the Philippines. (And yes, the Japanese were routinely cruel and repressive in their pursuit of their goals.)

I won't speak to the morality of it all; its not really germane to this thread.

As to any Western nation being drawn to Korea. Outside of Russia - and they would have to make a move no later than 1880's - I can't imagine much interest in a country that doesn't have significant exploitative resources for the capital, military as well as economic. that would be needed.
Korea, politically, economically, and socially, is a Japan/China story, not much of a Western one (still is, the US is just being Japan's surrogate in the North Pacific)
Of course. Korea is surrounded by both of those countries(and Russia).
 
I think the OP is possible if we consider Russia "Western." We would require some PODs that strengthen Russia and we may have to go all the way back to the Mongols (i.e. the Kipchaks do not break ranks with other nomadic peoples who encountered SUbedei in the 1220s) and possiblly as late as a Poland/Lithuania screw in the 1600s. Another possible POD is Ivan the Terrible was not dropped on his head as a child, and he runs an able administration and keeps the Rurikid dynasty going. This avoids the time of troubles, the loss of Ukraine to Poland, and puts Russia several decades ahead. Perhaps this makes ATL Russia strong enough where Poland does not consider invading. THis may keep 19th century Russia out of western European politics (unless they pile on France as they collapse and take Prussia or something.)

THat being said, this makes a more muscular policy in the early 1800s in the east possible, which means possible annexations of Manchuria and Korea. IOTL, there were Orthodox missions there, so the Russians were looking to exert influence. In this event, they probably can pull it off before the Industrial Revolution leaves them too much in the dust.
 

Kaze

Banned
The Dutch is an option - they already had a small colony in Japan. But cited above, Russia is obvious one.
 

samcster94

Banned
I think the OP is possible if we consider Russia "Western." We would require some PODs that strengthen Russia and we may have to go all the way back to the Mongols (i.e. the Kipchaks do not break ranks with other nomadic peoples who encountered SUbedei in the 1220s) and possiblly as late as a Poland/Lithuania screw in the 1600s. Another possible POD is Ivan the Terrible was not dropped on his head as a child, and he runs an able administration and keeps the Rurikid dynasty going. This avoids the time of troubles, the loss of Ukraine to Poland, and puts Russia several decades ahead. Perhaps this makes ATL Russia strong enough where Poland does not consider invading. THis may keep 19th century Russia out of western European politics (unless they pile on France as they collapse and take Prussia or something.)

THat being said, this makes a more muscular policy in the early 1800s in the east possible, which means possible annexations of Manchuria and Korea. IOTL, there were Orthodox missions there, so the Russians were looking to exert influence. In this event, they probably can pull it off before the Industrial Revolution leaves them too much in the dust.
Russia does seem "Western" enough to me for this discussion. This is before 1917 anyway and I always wondered how a Rurik-centric Russia would develop??
 
Top