During the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries, most European and some Asian states were considering the adversities and the advantages brought about by imperialism and colonialism. It was during this era that most European states and some American states and Asian states such as China and Japan sort out to extend the might of their government to other states by expanding their borders to such states. Under such situations, the nations declared their sovereign power on "discovered "states. However, a country such as Japan, as many authors have declared in recent times, was a latecomer to the game of imperialism. By the time it began its quest to expand its borders to other major countries especially those from Europe had declared their sovereign power in some Asian countries such as India and also almost all the countries in Africa (Kublin 1959, p.68). Europeans are even thanked for the role they played in the subdivision of African states. A latter scenario that would later be known as the scramble for Africa. However even though the European imperialists are thanked for their subdivision/rule over the African states, little is spoken about the part that they played in the later civil wars that reemerged in Africa after their departure (Mamdani 2001, p.652).
Unlike Britain, France, Germany and other states in Europe that endeavored in the game of imperialism, Japan rose to the occasion a tad bit too late. By the time it had established itself as an imperial state, Britain had colonized and even decolonized several states in the world for more than half a century the latter of which had led to its immense creation and retention of wealth and resources. The reason why Japan didn't, until the 1850s engage in imperialism was due to the rule of the Tokugawa Shogunate (Kublin 1959, pp.68-70). The Tokugawa Shogunate was a form of government in the nineteenth century Japan where the government was based on clans/people belonging to Tokugawa. Those that were in the elite ruling government were known as the Shoguns and thus the word Shogunate.
At the time of the Shogunate rule, the rulers were very complacent on any ideas that involved any form of expansion in the outside world. For this matter, the rulers implicated an isolationist form of government that had no business interacting with the outside world. The Shoguns and the rest of the Feudal Lords of that era discouraged against any form of outside contact. To these feudal lords, the Europeans/Westerners were just greedy people out to exploit Asia and the rest of the world for their own gain. A backlash or ripple effect that emerged from this form of government was that there wasn't any form of socio-economic class. There were only majority peasants who languished in extreme poverty and the lords who rule over the majority (Kublin 1959, p.71). It is surprisingly interesting that during this time, even though the people lived in deplorable situations, there weren't any form of revolutions to counter the workings of the highly patriarchal government.
Another evident commonality during this Japanese period was the lack of international trade. Being a merchant in Japan at that time wasn't as lucrative as it became in the later years after the Shogunate government fell. Merchants couldn't sail off to foreign lands and trade with other traders nor were they allowed to hold goods in the port so as to increase the returns. Such doings were judged as being the highest forms of treason (Kublin 1959, p.72). Samurais, therefore, hated merchants and viewed them as cockroaches feeding off from the nation. The tradition of seclusion was initiated beginning in the year 1640 and lasted almost close to fourteen years when it ended with the fall of the Tokugawa government in 1854. In the beginning, the isolationist theories were just tradition but with time they graduated into being the law of the land.
The shift from isolationist to imperialistic notions shifted as a result of the change in government. During this change in government, the Japanese rulers were interested in making Japan an internationally acknowledged power just like the countries in the West. As such it realized (through its new ruler Emperor Meijiv) that the only way to attain power during this era was to extend its sovereignty over other states, something that it lacked. Even though the nation had become imperialistic through its ruler, it still didn't admire the way in which Europeans asserted their power in the states that they colonized.
Essentially the new ruler wanted to dominate over the new lands with the minimal negativities on the natives as possible. Furthermore, he wanted to rule the subjects of these lands as justly as possible while still bringing technological advancements to these lands. However, there are two factors that seemed contradictory to his goals. The first factor was that at the time Japan didn't have the needed resources for a technological upgrade of the lands due to the previous rulers (Tokugawa Shogunate). Furthermore, Japan wasn't the first imperialistic state that colonized a foreign land and promised the people of that land that they didn't occupy/ invade their land rather they brought economic breakthrough and technological advancements (Ferguson 2003, pp.2-3).
In the past invaders have claimed not to have hegemonic intentions while entering a country but eventually turn out to be the latter they claimed not to be. Take George W. Bush's comments when he invaded Iraq in 2003 and the words of General F. S. Maude to the Mesopotamians in 1917 as he penetrated into their lands. According to General F. S. Maude, the British army's intentions were purely peaceful and non-violent and thus he was appealing to the natives of the land to view them as friends and allies rather than foes (Ferguson 2003, pp.3-4). He appealed to the people to view the Britons as people who would ultimately bring growth to the Mesopotamia (present-day Iraq) in both economic and technological ways. However, their true interests lie in the rich petroleum/oil fields of the area (Baghdad). President Bush shared similar sentiments to the Iraqi people close to a century later. The United States troops invaded Baghdad, the capital city of Iraq with immense military force with the proclamation of unseating and unjust ruler, Saddam Hussein. The president said that they were only interested in the harmonious living of the people and that they wouldn't just sit back as a dictator tore through the people. However, the Americans had some ulterior motives vested in their invasion of Iraq. They too were interested in the oil-rich fields of Baghdad (Ferguson 2003, p.5).
In the case of Japan, their needs for colonization were not forcibly resultant of outside forces rather they emerged from intrinsically emanating powers. Even the manner in which they handled their foreign affairs was completely different from the manner in which the Westerners handled their subjects. However just like the American oppression of its colonists, so was the Japanese government. This was majorly from the fact that the newly established governmental guidelines on colonization were not effective as the legislators perceived. However, Japan is still credited with its colonization facts and the manner in which they brought development to the colonists. Initially, the Japanese were interested in the colonization of Korea in 1920 but were unable to realize their dreams. They did consequently manage to colonize Formosa, current day Taiwan which laid a basis for their imperialistic ideologies. Later they moved to the islands of Hokkaido where they developed a project that the rest of the world failed to give enough credit for its immense success. The Japanese put its full weight in the colonial state to realize a big success.
The main policies employed in Japanese during that era were those intended to instill fear. One of these common policies/ideologies was that of fascism and neo-fascism (Young 2017, pp.1-3). Under these ideologies, any people who were thought to be a threat to the state were rounded up and thrown to the gallows. Radical intellectuals, educated communists plus any other people who thought that the government wasn't operating under objective integral rules lived in fear of execution during these time and preferred to remain in the shadows. Fascism was an ideology which was borrowed, ironically from the European states of Germany and Italy. It is ironical that Japan chose to borrow ideologies and later unite with these states in the second world war despite the fact that a few years back, the country was reluctant and even hateful of any policies emanating from the Western world.
Fascism in the neo-imperialistic Japan took four very important dimensions. The first of these dimensions was Asianism. Asianism was a theory that Japan had that all Asian countries, as well as all the Asian citizens, should unite as one and fight against the common enemy/enemies who was/were the communists as well as the Westerners in the rest of the European countries except Germany and Italy. Under the Asianism ideology, Japan wanted to assume the regime over the rest of the Asian nations.
The second pillar upon which Japanese fascism was built upon was militarism. Militarism began or emanated from the Manchurian Incident (1931). The Japanese military became the main power behind the success of the government and the empire. It was used as a tool of radicalism as a tool of instilling fear to those who dared object against the rulings of the empire. Hyper-militarism helped the Japanese empire seize control of civilian entities such as the South Manchurian Railway. Additionally, through the army, the Governor-General of Kwantung was able to put the Japanese city of Tokyo under the full military supervision and administration. Once the military was in charge of Tokyo, it made sure that all civilians and all political leaders were sidelined from the control of central government organs. The military was highly entrenched and drenched in power that it became obsessed with militarizing the entire empire.
Red Peril was the third pillar of the fascism in Japan. The red peril is a culture in a state where people live in constant fear of communism. This was a technique launched by the central government organs to ensure that the citizens weren't radicalized by Soviets into becoming communists and thereby forming revolutionary groups to revolt against the government. Typically, the red peril was characterized by massive violence by the military meant to instill the fear so recognized by the Japanese empire to solve all its problems. These strategies persisted from the 1920s onwards (Young 2017, pp.1-3).
Finally, there was radical statism. Radical statism was the final measure aimed at employing fear of the people. It was meant to achieve all factors and needs that the three pillars of Japanese fascism hadn't achieved. Radical statism played a critical role in the foreign expansion of Japan between the years 1931 and 1945 that is during the period lasting in the Second World War (Young 2017, p.5). The notion was that people should always turn to the government/empire to seek solutions from all their social problem. Radical statism was an ideology that was spanned by government officials to make the Japanese people highly depended on the central government in such a way that they recognized it as the only entity capable of solving their problems.
Another common aspect will all colonists ranging from those in the west to those in the east other than their actions were shrouded in self-interest is that once they left the states that they colonized, the states ended/were left in peril mostly due to civil wars (Mamdani 2001, p.651). As an example, it is easy to view the adversities of war in countries such as Taiwan as well as the African states that were colonized. Once they left the countries, the natives ended up fighting due to the urge to reclaim the power they hadn't felt in a long time. Colonialism or rather the colonialists were the source of racism as well as ethnicity divisions. For instance, the Britons in a country such as Uganda recognized that there were three races, the whites (the colonialist/Britons), the colored(Asians) and then the Africans/Blacks. However, when it came to ethnicity, the tribes which were in the native country made up the tribal/ethnical stuctures. Colonialism can, therefore, be blamed for the ignition of tribalism in Africa because without tribalism, the African continent would be prosperous more than it is right now (Mamdani 2001, p.654).