How much wealthier would Korea be today had it retained its independence after 1905?

CaliGuy

Banned
Had Korea retained its independence after 1905--for instance, by completely butterflying away the Russo-Japanese War--and avoided getting partitioned after the end of World War II later on (other than the Russo-Japanese War, I want to minimize the butterflies in this TL), how much wealthier would Korea--including our TL's South Korea--be in this TL?

Any thoughts on this?

Also, didn't Korean Emperor (previously King) Kojong begin some reforms and industrialization before Japan's 1905 conquest of Korea put an end to all of that?
 
Considering how geographically close to Japan it is, i.e. being the gateway to northern China. It would be difficult to navigate without the Japanese knocking at the door sometime in the mid 1910's.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Considering how geographically close to Japan it is, i.e. being the gateway to northern China it would be difficult to navigate without the Japanese knocking at the door sometime in the mid 1910's.
That would provoke a Russo-Japanese war but a decade later, though; indeed, would Japan actually have the appetite for this?
 
Japan poured a ton of money into Korea in the early years that really fuelled its industrial expansion, infrastructure and agriculture.

It's not going to be dirt poor, but I have a hard time seeing it wealthier.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Japan poured a ton of money into Korea in the early years that really fuelled its industrial expansion, infrastructure and agriculture.

It's not going to be dirt poor, but I have a hard time seeing it wealthier.
Didn't Japan also heavily exploit Korea, though?
 
Japan poured a ton of money into Korea in the early years that really fuelled its industrial expansion, infrastructure and agriculture.

It's not going to be dirt poor, but I have a hard time seeing it wealthier.
All of which were bombed back to the stone age during the Korean War.

Both OTL Koreas were built from the ground up with nothing but sweat, tears, and blood. Quite different from the all the support its neighbors got.
 
All of which were bombed back to the stone age during the Korean War.

Both OTL Koreas were built from the ground up with nothing but sweat, tears, and blood. Quite different from the all the support its neighbors got.

That's only half the story though. There was a lot of critical infrastructure that was intact as well as skilled labour (much more importantly) that allowed the Korean economy to explode like it did.
 

Deleted member 1487

Had Korea retained its independence after 1905--for instance, by completely butterflying away the Russo-Japanese War--and avoided getting partitioned after the end of World War II later on (other than the Russo-Japanese War, I want to minimize the butterflies in this TL), how much wealthier would Korea--including our TL's South Korea--be in this TL?

Any thoughts on this?

Also, didn't Korean Emperor (previously King) Kojong begin some reforms and industrialization before Japan's 1905 conquest of Korea put an end to all of that?
Well a lot of modern South Korea's wealth is based on US investments in it's economy as a client state. It was actually quite poor until about the 1990s. North Korea is where the mineral wealth is. Without being a US client and getting investment as a rival to North Korea an independent, united Korea is likely to be quite poor actually and likely an economic client of either China or Japan.
 
There was a lot of critical infrastructure
Such as?

that was intact as well as skilled labour (much more importantly) that allowed the Korean economy to explode like it did.
About as skilled as the average African under colonialism.

Well a lot of modern South Korea's wealth is based on US investments in it's economy as a client state. It was actually quite poor until about the 1990s. North Korea is where the mineral wealth is. Without being a US client and getting investment as a rival to North Korea an independent, united Korea is likely to be quite poor actually and likely an economic client of either China or Japan.
On the contrary, South Korea was treated as a basket case and never given anything above mere survival. It wasn't until South Korea started standing on its own feet by itself that the investments came in.
 
No North Korea will have a much larger impact than anything else. There is an extraordinary amount of wealth tied up in that problem, not just in terms of military spending but in the incredible missed opportunity that is NK. 25 million people, considerable mineral wealth, direct land connection with China/Russia. The economies of scale alone would be considerable. A united Korea today would quite probably be in a similar league to modern Germany, perhaps a little poorer overall but certainly above the UK/France in total economic output. Whether this unification is achieved in 1905 or 1945 will have an impact, but simply being NK free will be the biggest individual factor.
 
What bugs me here is that there seems to be some assumption that only outside intervention would have developed Korea. Unlike Taiwan which literally had nothing, Korea before annexation was developing pretty quickly on its own, with arguably the most modernized city in East Asia before everything was taken away in 1910.

No North Korea will have a much larger impact than anything else. There is an extraordinary amount of wealth tied up in that problem, not just in terms of military spending but in the incredible missed opportunity that is NK. 25 million people, considerable mineral wealth, direct land connection with China/Russia. The economies of scale alone would be considerable. A united Korea today would quite probably be in a similar league to modern Germany, perhaps a little poorer overall but certainly above the UK/France in total economic output. Whether this unification is achieved in 1905 or 1945 will have an impact, but simply being NK free will be the biggest individual factor.
Certainly something to consider, one of the major exports was gold, which would have helped with industrialization.
 

Deleted member 1487

On the contrary, South Korea was treated as a basket case and never given anything above mere survival. It wasn't until South Korea started standing on its own feet by itself that the investments came in.
Not really:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_South_Korea#First_Republic_1948.E2.80.931960
Top priority was placed on the growth of a self-reliant economy and modernization; "Development First, Unification Later" became the slogan of the times and the economy grew rapidly with vast improvement in industrial structure, especially in the basic and heavy chemical industries.[58][59] Capital was needed for such development, so the Park regime used the influx of foreign aid from Japan and the United States to provide loans to export businesses, with preferential treatment in obtaining low-interest bank loans and tax benefits. Cooperating with the government, these businesses would later become the chaebol.[53]
[58][60]

Relations with Japan were normalized by the Korea-Japan treaty ratified in June 1965.[61][62] This treaty brought Japanese funds in the form of loans and compensation for the damages suffered during the colonial era without an official apology from the Japanese government, sparking much protest across the nation.[53][58]

The government also kept close ties with the United States, and continued to receive large amounts of aid. A status of forces agreement was concluded in 1966, clarifying the legal situation of the US forces stationed there.[63][64]

With US aid and military forces came major income from US troops on the ground in South Korea, and just like in Germany and Japan the US government paid Korea to rent land for bases. US military presence was an injection of US money into the economy.

Certainly of course the South Koreans wisely used that money to develop their economy, but the money to develop came from a ton of foreign aid, loans, and reparations, plus US military presence in the country with resulting increased foreign spending in the local economy.

Also the opening of China in the 1970s created a MAJOR market for South Korea:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-Year_Plans_of_South_Korea#1967.E2.80.931971
U.S.-China's opening up in 1972 led to a greater competitive marketplace for South Korean goods and services.
 
What bugs me here is that there seems to be some assumption that only outside intervention would have developed Korea. Unlike Taiwan which literally had nothing, Korea before annexation was developing pretty quickly on its own, with arguably the most modernized city in East Asia before everything was taken away in 1910

Most uncolonised countries IOTL proved extremely capable of developing their economies during the late 19th-early 20th centuries when considered over a 25-50 year period, usually only undone by incredibly destructive war. One needs look no further than Eastern Europe prior to WW1 to see what later developing but independent countries could do in non-horrific conditions. Early 20th Century China, Korea, and Japan are further examples of this. If Korea was able to avoid invasion/conquest during the 20th century there is absolutely no reason to think that by 2017 it would be among the most developed countries in the world. To be sure, one could write a timeline where things go very wrong for internal reasons but that could be done for any country, including successful OTL countries. There's nothing prescriptive about it.
 
Most uncolonised countries IOTL proved extremely capable of developing their economies during the late 19th-early 20th centuries when considered over a 25-50 year period, usually only undone by incredibly destructive war. One needs look no further than Eastern Europe prior to WW1 to see what later developing but independent countries could do in non-horrific conditions. Early 20th Century China, Korea, and Japan are further examples of this. If Korea was able to avoid invasion/conquest during the 20th century there is absolutely no reason to think that by 2017 it would be among the most developed countries in the world. To be sure, one could write a timeline where things go very wrong for internal reasons but that could be done for any country, including successful OTL countries. There's nothing prescriptive about it.

That's not even touching the issue where arguing that outside guidance was necessary for successful industrialization attempts to justify imperialism. Korea needed Japan like it needed syphilis.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Well a lot of modern South Korea's wealth is based on US investments in it's economy as a client state. It was actually quite poor until about the 1990s. North Korea is where the mineral wealth is. Without being a US client and getting investment as a rival to North Korea an independent, united Korea is likely to be quite poor actually and likely an economic client of either China or Japan.
Couldn't a united Korea use North Korea's resources to become very wealthy, though?
 

Deleted member 1487

Couldn't a united Korea use North Korea's resources to become very wealthy, though?
Mineral wealth tends not to be a great source of sustainable national wealth. Dutch disease.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease
Russia for instance hasn't really escaped the reality of it being an energy exporter as the primary means of sustaining it's economy.
Korea might have developed a modern economy without any outside help and as a no-man's-land between Japan and China, but it would be heavily dependent on it's larger, much more powerful neighbors for exporting.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Mineral wealth tends not to be a great source of sustainable national wealth. Dutch disease.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease

Didn't Norway escape the Dutch disease, though?

Korea might have developed a modern economy without any outside help and as a no-man's-land between Japan and China, but it would be heavily dependent on it's larger, much more powerful neighbors for exporting.

Doesn't Korea have its own large ports, though?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Norway is a special case.

How so?

What does that have to do with anything? They need the markets of Japan and China to export to.

Couldn't they rely on more distant foreign markets, though? For instance, on the U.S. market, the Russian market, and the European market (through Russia).
 
I don't think you can avoid the Russo-Japanese War and expect butterflies to go wild...

That said the context of East Asian politics will dictate mostly, how is the status of China for example.
 
Top