Allied occupations of Japan and Korea: causes and consequences

Japan and Korea Occupation

How and why did the Allied occupations of Japan and Korea differ?

Allied occupations of Japan and Korea date backs to year 1945 when World War II got ended. Both the occupations occurred as a consequence of victory of allies over the axis. The allied powers included the United States of America, United Kingdom, Soviet Union, France, and China whereas axis included Germany, Empire of Japan, and Italy (Schaller 1985, 1-11). The causes and effects of both these occupations were dependent on occupation of Japan by the allied forces. This paper will investigate and analyze that how and why did the allied occupations of Japan and Korea differ? After stating a brief hypothesis of this study, the paper will briefly inform the reader about the background that led to both these occupations. This will set the stage for understanding that how and why did both of these allied occupations differ from each other.

Hypothesis

The occupation of Japan and Korea by allied forces differed in the context that Japan as a unified country was kept intact whereas Korea got disintegrated into North and South Korea. Japan paid the price of war and subsequent occupation by being bombed whereas Korea paid the price by being divided into two distinct countries.

Background

1939-1945: World War II (WWII) officially started in 1939 when Germany attacked Poland and thus encouraged all the great powers (both military and economic powers) of the world in this theatre of war. As a consequence, the allied powers of Great Britain and France attacked Germany in September 1939. As the world powers locked themselves into WWII, Japan was already at war with China since 1937. It was in 1940 that Japan joined the axis powers of Germany and Italy thereby occupying Vietnam, called the French Indochina. As a result, the U.S. And the U.K imposed an oil embargo on Japan (Takemae 2003, 15-33). The Empire of Japan, after annexing Vietnam intended to minimize the U.S. threat in the Northern Pacific. To achieve this end, Pearl Harbor was attacked that ultimately resulted in atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the two cities of Japan. Thus, the WWII officially ended when Japan surrendered unconditionally to the allied forces (meanwhile Soviet Union also attacked one of Japan's colony, Korea). It was now for the allied powers to decide the future of Japan as well as its colonies that included Korea and Taiwan. Within the allied powers, the U.S. led NATO was a major military block whereas Soviet led WARSAW was another major military block. Although united to fight the axis powers i.e. Germany, Italy and Japan, the allied powers were internally entangled in a 'communist' versus 'capitalist' war, each being supported by different countries (Takemae 2003).

Occupation of Korea

Korea's occupation at the hands of the U.S. And the Soviet military is one of the unfortunate historical episodes that resulted in major conflict, not only between the occupying forces but the occupied country as well in form of division into North and South Korea. Thus, at the onset of investigating Korean occupation, it is safe to state that geographical division of Korea into two distinct countries (North and South Korea) remains the most controversial and visible difference between occupation of Japan and Korea. Japan's unity was kept intact as one country, just having the same boundaries as were before the occupation by allied forces. Korea on the other hand lost its unity and was divided into two countries i.e. North Korea and South Korea by the two major military powers of the allied bloc.

Japanese occupation led to Korean occupation: The major occupation was that of Japan that resulted in occupation as well as division of Korea (Molasky 2001). Had there been no occupation of Japan, Korea would have been saved of this fate of occupation and division. Therefore, Japan's occupation differed from that of Korea in the sense that the former caused the latter. However, after both of these countries were occupied, what we today see for both the countries in totally different in terms of political and economic influence. While Japan regained and multiplied its economic power (through industrialization) as well as the military power (however the latter being subdued to the U.S.), Korea lost its potentially strong geographic position by virtue of division into two countries and being sandwiched into the two powerful militaries.

Communism vs. Capitalism in form of North and South Korea: As soon Soviets watched Hiroshima and Nagasaki being bombed by the U.S. And imminent victory of the U.S. over Japan, they quickly moved into the Northern parts of Korea by attacking Manchiria and expanding their occupation of Korea up to the 38th north parallel. It was here that the Soviet army halted for the U.S. To respond regarding the occupation of Korea. When the U.S. realized that Soviets could well occupy the whole of the Korea, they rushed and in collaboration with Russia, established a control through trusteeship and the control of respective regions was based on 38th north parallel as a geographic demarcation. It was this demarcation that divided Korea for the rest of the years till now. Seoul was made the capital of South Korea and Pyongyang as North Korean capital. Although both Russia and the U.S. entered into the trusteeship agreements for controlling Korea as a temporary arrangement (and thereby dividing the country into two), this arrangement resulted in making the demarcated boundaries permanent due to subsequent animosity of both Russia and the U.S. towards each other and each country established their preferred political and economic system in respectively governed countries (Oberdorfer 1997, 50-90).

Start of cold war: It was the beginning of cold war (a term coined by George Orwell) that shaped the fate of Korea as two distinct and mutually hostile countries. The background of this animosity was the mutual tussle between Russia as a supporter of communist system and the U.S. As a capitalist leader of allied powers. Both the countries wanted for Korea a political and economic system that could have furthered their ideological agendas. The U.S. wanted for Korea what it had achieved in Japan, modernization of society and economy and a Korean State friendly to the U.S. polices. Same was desired by Russia when it occupied the Northern parts of Korea, thereby expanding the communist influence further into East Asia. While the U.S. comprehensively gained control of the political and economic system of Japan, it could not do the same in Korea due to Russian forces being already stationed in North Korea. In fact the U.S. only succeeded in eliminating the threat of Korea being wholly ruled by the Russian backed communists. Therefore, both the countries adopted same formula for the occupation of Korea as has been adopted in Germany when the latter was divided into East and West Germany. However, a major difference was that East and West Germany demolished the Berlin wall and reunited in 1989 but North and South Korea only strengthened their animosity by making the Armistice line a permanent border between both Korean parts.

The Korean War: The cold war between Russia and the U.S. did not remain cold for long and both the powers used the Korean land as a means to fight each other, both at economic as well as the military ends. The Russian and Chinese backed North Korea waged a full-fledged war against South Korea and civil war like situation prevailed for around three years. The U.N backed forces (mainly composed of the U.S. military) pushed the Northerners back and Seoul was regained by the U.N forces, back as the capital of South Korea.

Difference in forms and difference in results

Korea was a colony of Japan before being occupied by allied forces. Until the occupation of Japan, the allied forces (mainly Russia and the U.S.) were somewhat trustworthy for each other. However, as time passed and the victories of allied forces strengthened, the commonality of objectives started getting eliminated. The mutual objectives were gradually being attained and now came the turn for the concealed agendas of both powers to be fulfilled. Therefore, the results of both Japanese and Korean occupation are strikingly different than each other. Japanese occupation did not result in the country becoming battleground of ideologies (ideology regarding how economic and political systems should operate). Capitalist ideology was comprehensively adopted in the whole of mainland Japan. On the other hand, Korea became a battle field for Russia and America, each trying to constrain the influence of other. To achieve this end, each of the then superpowers increased influence in their respective part of Korea and made the division permanent. Capitalist-democratic system was not allowed by Russia to seep into Northern part of Korea whereas communist expansion was made to halt in Southern part. In fact, the U.S. successes in transforming the fate of Southern part and South Korea are far ahead of North when compared with respect to economic and social progress.

It is safe to opine that Japan and South Korea have come out as winners as a consequence of occupation (notwithstanding and disregarding the loss of life during battles) whereas North Korea paid the heaviest price of being occupied, being stripped from affluent Southern part and suffering by having to side with faltering communist power of Russia. While Japan was occupied by allied forces for battling against them, Korea was annexed by same allied forces (the U.S. And Russia) to gain geographic, political, and military advantage over each other. The consequences of occupation were also different for both of the occupied countries. Korea got disintegrated but Japan did not. Korea's economic progress got limited to the Southern part only (one occupied by the U.S.) whereas Japan progressed as a unified country. Japan progressed to become sixth largest military power of the world (although amenable to the U.S.) and third largest world economy after the U.S. And China. South Korea is now amongst the G20 countries having high income population; North Korea is significantly underdeveloped compared to the North.