*Modern Japanese History Through Korean Eyes*, Chapters 7–9

Date and Time: July 22, 2026, 21:00

Location: Online

Participants: kdg, mori, 자유, g, Tiberius, Bench Press

1. A Leader’s Choice in Crisis: National Fate Divided by the Relinquishment of Power or Obsession with It

In the face of the irresistible global change of Western imperialism in the late 19th century, the fates of Joseon and Japan diverged sharply depending on how their ruling elites handled power in a time of crisis.

Japan’s flexible institutional transformation (Taisei Hokan): To prevent mutual destruction through civil war and intervention by Western powers, the Tokugawa shogunate voluntarily returned to the emperor the power it had monopolized for over 260 years.

This choice, which prioritized the preservation of the state over private power, led to the Meiji government’s rapid, centralized modernization. However, the militaristic and ultranationalist characteristics embedded in the Meiji Restoration itself later became the fundamental seeds of imperialist overreach.

King Gojong of Joseon’s selfish obsession with power and national collapse: By contrast, King Gojong of Joseon himself crushed the possibility of systemic reform, assassinating Kim Okgyun—who had sought constitutional-monarchy reform that would limit the king’s absolute power—and even desecrating his corpse.

Acts such as the Agwan Pacheon, in which he relied on foreign powers, were short-sighted measures that prioritized preserving “imperial authority” over national independence.

Furthermore, Gojong’s “dual diplomacy and attempts to sell off concessions” became a major reason Japan shifted from treating Joseon as merely a protectorate to pursuing full annexation.

The historical context of annexation: The Japan-Korea Annexation of 1910 was both a product of the confidence Japan gained from the Russo-Japanese War and a tragedy carried out within the broader currents of world history, in which imperial powers employed similar methods of aggression, as seen in the 1908 annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the case of French Indochina.

Still, the fact that corruption among the late-Joseon ruling class blocked opportunities for indigenous enlightenment and reform remains a painful historical limitation.

2. The Russo-Japanese War and the Dilemma of Imperial Expansion

Differences in fighting spirit and military morale: During the Russo-Japanese War, unlike the Japanese military, which was united by a clear sense of purpose, the Russian military—fighting on unfamiliar land 3,000 km away without even understanding why—suffered from low morale and was defeated. This shows how important national security and a clear concept of the primary enemy are.

The paradox of expansion and the rise of fascism: After the Russo-Japanese War, Japan’s annexation of the Korean Peninsula and Manchuria lengthened its borders, and the contradiction of having to defend them compelled endless expansion, including the Sino-Japanese War and the Pacific War. After the war, rising taxes, the Great Kanto Earthquake, and the Great Depression combined to destroy the economies of the lower classes. This in turn brought down Taisho Democracy and drove the country toward military totalitarianism.

3. Uncontrollable Militarism: Japan’s Structural Uniqueness, Distinct from the Nazis, the German Empire, and North Korea

It is clear that Japan’s system did not escape the general characteristics of militarism, but the factors that made it impossible to stop cannot be explained simply by popular support or terrorism alone.

Compared with systems such as Nazi Germany, the German Empire, and North Korea, Japan possessed the decisive peculiarity that it lacked any safety mechanism whatsoever to prevent a runaway military.

Collapse of the top-down control system: In Nazi Germany or North Korea, the supreme leader or top authority completely controlled the military, but in Japan even the upper ranks of the military could not control the lower ranks.

Representative examples include the fact that, during the Manchurian Incident, the Imperial General Headquarters and the Army General Staff had no control whatsoever over the Kwantung Army, and that during the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, they failed to contain the disturbance caused by a mere regimental commander and were dragged into war.

There was the nominal justification of control through the emperor, but in reality the military was able to neutralize authority behind an emperor who had no substantive power.

The structure of lawful insubordination and control over domestic politics: Beyond merely having military officers serve as prime minister, the military possessed the exclusive power, through its right to recommend the ministers of the Army and Navy, to legally derail the formation and operation of cabinets.

In the face of this “institutionalized insubordination,” not even the emperor’s command authority could function. Combined with the culture of assassination and terror deeply embedded in political history since the Meiji Restoration, this became the soil in which military runaway flourished.

4. Causes of Defeat and Fear of Communization

Factional conflict between the Army and Navy and defeat: The severe budget competition and intelligence disconnect between the Choshu domain (Army) and the Satsuma domain (Navy) led to the reckless gamble of the attack on Pearl Harbor, and internal strife and the duplication of fronts became key causes of defeat.

Fear of communist takeover and protection of the emperor system: The annihilation of the Romanov dynasty in the 1917 Russian Revolution instilled an extreme fear of communization in Japan’s leadership—figures such as Fumimaro Konoe and Hideki Tojo—who were maintaining the emperor system said to have an “unbroken imperial line for ten thousand generations.” For them, communism meant the collapse of the emperor system, the spiritual foundation of Japan. As a result, they feared “the communization of the home islands” more than defeat itself, and this led to a totalitarian system of total mobilization.

Postwar settlement and modern Japan: After defeat, MacArthur preserved the emperor system for the convenience of occupation rule, and Shigeru Yoshida laid the foundation of modern Japan through the “Yoshida Doctrine,” which relied on the United States for security while focusing on economic growth.

5. Perspectives on Colonial Rule and Historical Awareness

Against the painful history in which corruption among the late-Joseon ruling class blocked opportunities for indigenous enlightenment and reform, a gap still remains between, on the one hand, the “colonial modernization theory” advanced by some, and on the other, the view that colonial rule was an illegal act of aggression grounded in thorough exploitation and violence that crushed autonomous development.

There is also a view that the broader world-historical context of the age of imperialism should be considered as well, since before the Kellogg-Briand Pact after World War I, war and annexation were not yet considered entirely illegal under international law.

What matters is that amid repeated demands for apology and compensation, we must coolly confront the wrongs of the past while also guarding against the attitude of consuming the history of 100 years ago only in the realm of unproductive emotion, and that the task left to us today is to open a better future.

*

The “Liberalism Reading Group” Kakao Open Chat or Band group is a communication space operated by reading group members.

Please note that this is not a channel operated by the Center for Free Enterprise (CFE), and keep this in mind when joining and participating.

▶ Join the Liberalism Reading Group:

https://open.kakao.com/o/g4Nn1uud

---

Original title: <한국인의 눈으로 본 근대 일본의 역사> 7~9장

Author: Ja-yu-ju-ui Ipmun Dokseo Toron Moim

Date: 2026-08-03

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=reading01&pn=1&idx=29342