This section explains why Japan’s annexation of Korea (1910–1945) fundamentally differed from Western colonial rule. Japan did not actively seek annexation; it cautiously pursued it as a stabilizing measure encouraged by major powers. Unlike European colonialism, Japan invested heavily in Korea’s education, infrastructure, and industrial development while preserving the Korean royal family and aristocracy. These historical facts demonstrate that the annexation was not colonial exploitation but a unique political integration.

How Was Japan’s Annexation of Korea Fundamentally Different from Western Colonial Policies?
December 13, 2022

Until August 2014, when I was still subscribing to the Asahi Shimbun, I had no idea that Nobuo Watanabe was a truly great scholar.
Most people who subscribed to the Asahi Shimbun probably did not know it either.
This is a chapter that not only the Japanese people but readers worldwide should read.

p223–p233

● How Was Japan’s Annexation of Korea Fundamentally Different from Western Colonial Policies?
Five years after the Russo-Japanese War, on August 22, 1910, Japan annexed the Korean Empire under the “Japan–Korea Annexation Treaty.”
As a result, the Korean emperor transferred the sovereign authority of the Korean Empire to the Emperor of Japan.
This is what is known as the “Japan–Korea Annexation.”

However, this annexation was not something Japan had proactively sought.
Rather, it was an unexpected development.
There was a prelude to all this.

Immediately after the Russo-Japanese War, in November 1905, Japan concluded the Second Japan–Korea Convention with the Korean Empire.
Through this treaty, Korea became a Japanese protectorate.
Japan then established the Residency-General of Korea, with Hirobumi Itō appointed as the first Resident-General.

For Japan, annexing Korea would mean taking on an enormous burden, and therefore Itō opposed annexation.
If Japan were to annex Korea and defend the entire Korean Peninsula, the cost would be immense.
Moreover, since there was little significant industry in Korea at the time, establishing industries and modern infrastructure would be a major undertaking.
Although Japan had won the Russo-Japanese War, it was not in the same position as the European powers to manage colonial territories.
Itō understood this very well.

However, Korea’s unstable diplomacy posed a continual threat to Japan’s national interests.
Both the First Sino-Japanese War and the Russo-Japanese War had been triggered by issues relating to Korea.
Therefore, Japan decided that it should temporarily take charge of Korea’s foreign affairs until Korea modernized and strengthened itself.
Korea agreed to this, and the treaty was signed.

Yet despite Japan’s administration of Korea’s foreign affairs under the treaty, in 1907 Korea secretly sent envoys to the Hague Peace Conference in the Netherlands, appealing for the restoration of its diplomatic rights.
However, the attending nations unanimously rejected Korea’s participation, and its delegates were refused entry to the conference.

Then, on October 26, 1909, Hirobumi Itō was assassinated at Harbin Station by the Korean terrorist An Jung-geun.
This event caused Japanese public opinion to shift abruptly toward annexation, and the following year Korea was formally annexed.

How did the international community respond?
The major powers shared the view that instability on the Korean Peninsula was detrimental to their interests.
Both the United Kingdom and the United States actively encouraged Japan’s annexation of Korea.
The United States demanded, in exchange, complete recognition of its rule over the Philippines.
The United Kingdom supported annexation because a stronger Japan, its ally, would better protect British interests on the Asian mainland.

Even with these recommendations, Japan did not rashly proceed.
Japan carefully consulted Russia, China, and other countries, and annexed Korea only after confirming that none of the major powers opposed the move.

In the eleventh edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, a widely circulated but authoritative publication of the time, the term “colonization” was not used to describe Japan’s actions in Korea.
Instead, it used the term “annexation.”
“Colonization” implies exploitation of an inferior nation, whereas “annexation” refers to the joining of two countries on more equal terms.
For example, the relationship between England and Scotland is considered “annexation,” not colonial rule.
Likewise, the Britannica regarded the Japan–Korea relationship as analogous to that.

In fact, Japan transferred significant administrative authority to Koreans within a remarkably short period.
Those who held positions equivalent to Japanese prefectural assembly members were almost entirely Korean from very early on, and individuals equivalent to prefectural governors also emerged.
At the same time, political movements within Korea itself supported annexation.
The largest political party in Korea at the time favored unification.
Their reasoning commonly invoked the idea of a “shared origin” between Japanese and Koreans.

Japan and Korea were said to share ancestral roots, and to some extent this is true.
At least between Baekje and ancient Japan, the concept of common ancestry is valid.

Thus the two nations united.
But what fundamentally distinguished Korea from other colonies around the world was Japan’s enormous effort and investment to raise Korea to the same level as Japan.
Japan built elementary and middle schools, introduced compulsory education, established universities and technical schools, and even taught Hangeul, which had been little used and scarcely known.

Furthermore, the Korean royal family retained its royal status permanently.
The crown prince remained crown prince.
The traditional Korean aristocracy, the yangban, retained its status and became Japanese kazoku (nobility).
Such treatment would have been absolutely impossible in European colonies.
Indian or Burmese aristocrats could never become British lords, nor could Indonesian village chiefs become Dutch nobility.

Therefore, viewing Japan’s annexation of Korea as “colonial rule” is a clear misunderstanding.

The annexation ended with Japan’s defeat in the Second World War, lasting only a little over thirty years.
During that time, both population and production increased dramatically.
Because the period was relatively short, some aspects remained incomplete.
But had it lasted fifty or even a hundred years, Japan and Korea might have developed a relationship similar to that of England and Scotland.
Japan’s aim had been precisely such a relationship.
Japan believed that, given the global circumstances of the time, this was the only path that could serve the national interests of both countries.