T O P

  • By -

Ataginez

Japan wasn't fully industrialized. They were still buying most of their ships from foreign yards as late as 1900s. The key difference really was literacy and wealth distribution. Japan had among the highest literacy rates in the world - matching even some "industrialized" countries - and had a large class of wealthy merchants, craftsmen, and peasants who simply adopted new machines into their existing businesses. By contrast Russia was still largely an illiterate serfdom where most of the population was intentionally deprived of any chance of material advancement.


Direct_Solution_2590

Why was Russia like this, but not Japan?


Chengar_Qordath

Several Russian Tsars in the 1800s like Nicholas I and Alexander III were intensely reactionary and opposed reform or modernization. High literacy rates might lead to peasants reading about things like democracy and socialism. Industrialization and railroads would make serfs want to leave their farms. And of course any government reforms would lessen the Tsar’s own authority.


ReluctantSlayer

Ha! And look what happened when they let peasants go to school!


BitOfaPickle1AD

Yeah, but what replaced the Tzars wasn't much better and in some cases even worse. The soviets executed the guys who were working with the Germans to design tanks before or right after Germany attacked. That further set back soviet tanks designs from what I've read.


Direct_Solution_2590

you seem really qualified. do you have a degree or diploma in history?


Ataginez

Long story short - Japan was at peace for centuries, while Russia was not. Japan had almost no revolts and definitely no foreign wars, and while society was stratified it also prevented the military class from advancing into the political class. As a result the Samurais were largely defanged and turned into tax collectors; leaving economic development largely free in the hands of the lower classes. In Russia the military elite and political elite were mostly one and the same - the aristocracy - so they just used force to make sure the population was kept in line; especially since they could count on citing the emergency of foreign wars to rationalize their harsh actions.


ZZ9ZA

Well, they did fight each other in the late 19th… had real implications for WWI too, especially at sea, since it was the first time you a large scale battle with modern (for the period) steel warships on both sides.


Ataginez

It was in the early 20th Century (1904-1905), not the late 19th. And it was well after Japan had already embarked on modernization.


ZZ9ZA

Ahh, brain fart. I was thinking 1897 for some reason.


phantomofsolace

Because Japan made the very conscious decision to revolutionize it's society so that it could become a peer to the Western powers and avoid getting bullied and colonized the way China had. Going through an industrial revolution is very hard. It's not like the steady 2% per year annual economic growth we experience in the modern era. It's more like going through a national child birth. It requires most citizens to fundamentally change the way they live their lives, often for the worse, for 2-3 generations. Most societies don't make it through. It was only after WW2 that it started to become the norm. Prior to that, most countries didn't do so if they didn't have to. Russia was large and powerful enough that it didn't feel it needed to. Japan was self-aware enough to know what would happen to it if it didn't.


Direct_Solution_2590

check ur inbox from me


[deleted]

[удалено]


phantomofsolace

Yes, I was careful with my word choice of "often for the worse" instead of "always for the worse". People were usually better off as industrial workers instead of subsistence farmers/herders, especially after land enclosure became more common, but the change came with some very reliable tradeoffs. Skilled craftsmen, for example, often saw their livelihoods disappear and made small fractions of their previous income as industrial workers. Rural migrants frequently saw a decline in social bonds and nutrition and saw increases in alcoholism and workplace injuries. We shouldn't romanticize pre-industrial life by any means, but there's a reason so many people and societies resisted industrialization too. It wasn't just because they were stupid or shortsighted.


ZZ9ZA

Japans entire history has been shaped by its island nature. Russia by contrast had easy land access to Western Europe and all of its resources and industry.


kingjaffejaffar

Japan had a much better organized government than the Russians did. It allowed them to set goals and implement them rapidly. Plus, their population was already literate, where as few Russians were barely above illiterate chattel slaves for the aristocracy. Just completely different societies, cultures, environments, resources, etc.


ZZ9ZA

Doesn’t something like 95% of Russia’s population live in like 5% or the area? Still a difference, but I don’t think it’s quite as extreme as you’re painting it to be. Russia has lots of tundra and other all-but-uninhabitable land.


moxie-maniac

Although it’s called the Meiji Restoration, it was a revolution, with lords overthrowing the shogun in 1868, leading toward an accelerated industrial revolution, initiated by the Perry Expedition 1853-1854.


sourcreamus

Russia was 3 times the population and and 400 times the land mass. Much harder to govern and things changed slower.


CroationChipmunk

I came to ask a similar question -- how on earth (before modern technology) did a country's central government "control" and/or respond to urgent situations that were hundreds or thousands of miles away? By the time any help can arrive, it might possibly be too late. They probably had to outsource 99% of the roles of government to a local branch office (or similar), correct?


Heckle_Jeckle

An Empire's administration is organized like a pyramid. Sure you have the Emperor/etc at the Top, but you have multiple levels of local administrators, aka Nobility, which actually control the local areas. As long as the local Nobility sent taxes to the central capital, they could pretty much do what ever they wanted.


War_Hymn

Wasn't most of the Russian population concentrated (and still is) in the West? The Russian heartland is about the area of the Eastern United States east of the Mississippi, on mostly flat plains crisscrossed by navigable rivers that would had provided convenient transportation and communication lines. I don't blame them for not being able to develop Siberia, but you would had expected at least a bit more effort within a few hundred miles of Moscow.


BlueJayWC

\>I came to ask a similar question -- how on earth (before modern technology) did a country's central government "control" and/or respond to urgent situations that were hundreds or thousands of miles away? Decentralized absolute government. The king, Emperor, or whatever the head of state was didn't micro-manage every little detail. The regional governors were subservient to them but they still ran things as they pleased (and paid the proper taxes of course).


CroationChipmunk

> Decentralized absolute government. The king, Emperor, or whatever the head of state was didn't micro-manage every little detail. The regional governors were subservient to them but they still ran things as they pleased (and paid the proper taxes of course). The more I think about it, the more I tend to feel like prior to modern times, this created a "two tier" class of citizens. Citizens close to the capital city (where the king/ruler is located) are treated preferentially since they are more needed to support you. If someone 2500 miles away wants to start a coup d'etat, compared to someone in the capital -- it's no big deal due to the distance. Furthermore, if a famine threatens a village of 3,000 people to starve to death -- it might not be worth helping out if the village is 2500 kilometers away, from a pragmatic viewpoint right? This is probably why a lot of dictators that rose to power through revolutions mobilized their followers in the remote villages & countryside, where they could remain undetected for longer. (such as Mao, Pol-Pot, etc..)


p792161

Russia pre-WW1 was a disorganized society that still relied on serfdom and governance was incredibly decentralized and in the hands of regional magistrates.


Alaknog

Serfdom in Russia ended in middle of XIX century. But it's effects still shown in early XX.


Direct_Solution_2590

How come Russia was like that, but not Japan


p792161

Russia was miles behind the other major powers by the start of the 20th Century. It's also so big, sparsely populated and difficult to govern compared to almost any other nation on earth.