[anigbrowl]

These questions aren't comparable. Japan had a crash modernization followed by a brief outburst of violent colonialism, which they thought was the style at the time but was actually in decline almost everywhere else.

Britain had an empire that lasted hundreds of years, and whose greatest legacy is linguistic and temporal system dominance. Having spent centuries proclaiming itself to be the literal center of civilization to most of the world, is it really surprising that ambitious individuals gravitate toward it? This is the common culture that Britain set out to impose on its possessions.

It's especially ironic (though not especially surprising) that immigration from former territories went way up after Britain forcibly detached itself from the EU. Perhaps the Brexiteers wil offer to secede from the world next - build a national space program and launch Britain into orbit as a second satellite that can service its markets while orbiting the planet from a distance.

[10xDev]

The comparisons between the two nations are always superficial. When you peel the layers of nonsense off, it is just white supremacy with a mediocre attempt at masking it.

[applfanboysbgon]

> which they thought was the style at the time but was actually in decline almost everywhere else.

I truly hate the historical revisionism of Westerners. Japan engaged in colonialism because it was an active victim of colonialism, and the only way to fight back was to stand on equal footing. Through the 1800s~1940s, Europe controlled nearly the entirety of Asia. China had been subject to countless treaties forced upon it. The Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma, India were all colonies. 90% of Africa was under European control. 100% of both Americas was under European control. 100% of Australia and New Zealand was under European control. Europeans were literally aiming for world domination. The list of countries free from European colonialism could be counted on one hand: Japan (only because it successfully fought back), Korea (before it got annexed by Japan), Siam, Nepal, Iran pretty much covers it. Yet amazingly Europeans found and continue to find no shortage of pearl clutching over Japan daring to do the same thing they did, in a dog-eat-dog world where not doing so meant becoming another pawn.

To the extent colonialism declined, it was solely due to to the world wars wrecking Europe so utterly they could not maintain their overseas holdings, + the untouched US intervening in eg. Suez Crisis in order to assert itself as the global Western hegemon with no peers.

[anigbrowl]

It's not historical revisionism, it's my desire to not write multiple paragraphs explaining the much briefer period of Japanese colonialism when the main point I wanted to make was about the British empire. By the time Japan launched its invasion of Manchuria the end of European colonialism was already in sight; Ireland had freed (mos of) itself from British domination a decade earlier, Gandhi had led the salt march in India the previous year and so on.

Yet amazingly Europeans found and continue to find no shortage of pearl clutching over Japan daring to do the same thing they did, in a dog-eat-dog world where not doing so meant becoming another pawn.

This is the exact opposite of how I feel about it. It was natural for Japan to emulate its geopolitical competitors, they just timed it poorly, overlooked the gradually rising tide of decolonization, and allowed the army in Manchuria too much leeway, culminating in atrocities that continue to haunt their foreign relations today.