The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere...what was it really supposed to be like?

there's a saying about how strange it is that a plot of land as small as New Guinea, has such a high percentage of the world's languages.

(in Occupied Korea, the Japanese at least knew that, no matter how far they went, there'd always be someone who understood Korean -- go an equivilent distance in New Guinea, and you'd run into languages as different from one another as Ubykh, Navaho, and Swahili. I probably fail at imperialism, but what's the point in having a subject population who can't understand what you're telling them to do?)

You know, there are New Guineans living today who can remember the first time they saw metal. Conquering the region and suppressing revolt would not have been much trouble for the Japanese, especially in light of existing tribal rivalries. After that, the collaborators would start pouring in, as well as the invisible agents of imperialism, the anthropologists. Just like the US with the Indians, the British in Africa, or the Japanese themselves in Taiwan, ethnographers and linguists will come in and start studying native cultures and languages and would very soon begin producing handy reports for government perusal. Sure, many would say they're not doing it to aid imperialism, but the effect is the same anyway.

Anyway, it's my understanding that near the end, Japanese imperialists were taking tentative steps towards defining Japanese-ness not by ethnicity, but by citizenship. Yes, they were going for multiculturalism. So a Japanese person might be from the Home Islands or Taiwan or New Guinea, but they're all Japanese. Many historians believe it was just half-assed rhetoric, though. This one academic blog I follow makes reference to the subject (see footnote 4), though I remember seeing a more-detailed article about the subject somewhere.

There's also some interesting points about how the Japanese were trying to "Japanize" Korea. In other modern empires we find male occupiers taking local women as wives, but in Japanese Korea we find a lot of mixed marriages are between Japanese women and Korean men. This comes from Japanese ideas about the household. You see, mothers are seen as the ultimate influence in raising children, therefore the best way to make Koreans Japanese is to have the next generation raised by Japanese mothers. Many Koreans saw the union as advantageous since for them Japan was epitome of modernity. A lot of the men were intellectuals--again, it was about being progressive and modern--and quite a few had both Korean and Japanese wives.

It would have been interesting to see how this might have played out in Australia or Seattle. From the perspective of the white husbands, they would have been asserting dominance over their conquerors, while from the perspective of the Japanese wives, they would have been civilizing the next generation.
 
Except in the 1940s the idea of mixed marriages in places like Seattle or Sydney are not what they are today and coupled with defeat, such unions would probably be stigmatized greatly in those societies rather than be seen as attempting to establish dominance over the conquerers.

Then there would be the poor children. They wouldn't really look Japanese. Whereas Korean-Japanese children could probably easily pass for simple Japanese back in the Home Islands, these Australian-Japanese or American-Japanese would not and according to the footnote reference for the article you provided the link for, the author doesn't seem to believe that the rhetoric of of Japanese-ness by citizenship rather than ethnicity was anything more than rhetoric. This might present major problems for the descendants of such unions both in Japan and in their home societies (probably get lynched if they wander too far from their parents).
 
Given what else they were hoping to control, this doesn't actually seem that outlandish....
In the contect of those already outlandish goals not particularly, no. It’s just the first time me and a lot of others have probably heard about any Japanese aspirations in that area.
 
Then there would be the poor children. They wouldn't really look Japanese. Whereas Korean-Japanese children could probably easily pass for simple Japanese back in the Home Islands, these Australian-Japanese or American-Japanese would not and according to the footnote reference for the article you provided the link for, the author doesn't seem to believe that the rhetoric of of Japanese-ness by citizenship rather than ethnicity was anything more than rhetoric. This might present major problems for the descendants of such unions both in Japan and in their home societies (probably get lynched if they wander too far from their parents).

Exactly.
I don't think the Japanese were ever cut out to be a true empire, like the British or Roman empires. Those empires were both multi-ethnic; the ruling people never tried to outbreed their subject populations and force them all into their own race and culture (and moreover, they relied on local collaborators to do most of the governing).
The Japanese still had a feudal village mentality.
 

Shackel

Banned
Japan has until 1952.

After that, it stops existing. Tokyo, Kyoto, Osaka, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, anything that will claim to be under the Emperor.
 
Exactly.
I don't think the Japanese were ever cut out to be a true empire, like the British or Roman empires. Those empires were both multi-ethnic; the ruling people never tried to outbreed their subject populations and force them all into their own race and culture (and moreover, they relied on local collaborators to do most of the governing).
The Japanese still had a feudal village mentality.
Race? No. The Romans inducted many foreign people into their own culture on the other hand, just not all of them. There's a reason why Romanization was such a succesful process that contributed greatly to the empire's longevity.
 

Technocrat

Banned
Well, even in a Japan-wank perhaps their inability to subjugate more developed-and-populous nations would create a situation where a lot of their extended empire was not colonized but instead sattelitized or even just Finlandized. That could create culturally intriguing situations, where you have completely separate nations that are still largely defined by their isolation and passivity stemming from Japanese aeronaval and (if they do survive the war) nuclear arsenal.
 
In the contect of those already outlandish goals not particularly, no. It’s just the first time me and a lot of others have probably heard about any Japanese aspirations in that area.

Claiming bits of Antarctica is just what you do when you're a maritime imperial power. Even the US has "reserved the right". It's about as surprising as Japan using sun motifs.
 
Claiming bits of Antarctica is just what you do when you're a maritime imperial power. Even the US has "reserved the right". It's about as surprising as Japan using sun motifs.
I was more surprised by the fact that they aspired to take half the friggin' continent than that they claimed anything at all. Then again the Tokyo military leadership apparantly though they could march the Kwantung army practically all the way to the Ural mountains as well...
 
I was more surprised by the fact that they aspired to take half the friggin' continent than that they claimed anything at all. Then again the Tokyo military leadership apparantly though they could march the Kwantung army practically all the way to the Ural mountains as well...

I don't know if they expected to get the army all the way over there. However, they did expect Russia to collapse, and since in the victory scenario they only have Germany to share power with, might as well make as big a claim as possible.

I don't think Japan actually expected to conquer Latin America, Cuba, etc. It's all just contingency plans, for a more-than-best case scenario, so they aren't suddenly stuck with an unexpected piece of land they have no idea wtf to do with.
 
Top