StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Here's a discussion point.

Which of the above do you think was more significant in the isolationism policies of America before WW2, Imperial China and Japan?

For the purposes of this discussion, I find it appropiate to define physical factors as geography, the technological means of the time(wireless, transit times between other societies on ships/trains/etc, food technology such as salted meat which would last the journey vs refigeration), resources and population.
Cultural factors would involve the economy, political/societal organisation of labour and resources, government, doctrine and philosophy.

While cultural and physical factors are intertwined, the discussion here is which is more important.

We are talking about 3 significantly different civilisations and historical epoches over a different scope of time.
American isolationism in particular was never a significantly defined policy, other than America would not get entangled in entangling alliances that would involve it in the affairs(read wars) of Europe. Certainly, America never did physically cut itself off from world influences to the extent that China or Japan did.
However, America DID pride itself as being unique, same to China and Japan, did attempt to put in place an isolationist foreign policy and had in place various barriers for isolation purposes. The infamous IQ tests and immigration acts post WW1, the Tripoli Affair and George Washington statement that America would not be involved in the affairs of Europe.....The Monroe doctrine itself could had been read as an isolationist policy, insofar as it stated outright the boundaries of American influence and prohibited foreign intervention in its sphere.
Unlike China or Japan though, America never did isolate itself from the world in terms of technology, trade and ideas.

Is this due more to cultural or physical factors? As a cultural point, modern America was a land of immigrants and its "external" enemies were outgroups of hostile Indians, or native inhabitants in its early history. Unlike China or Japan, America did not face a true hostile enemy outside of her socio-demographic mileu. WASP or Germanic, her enemies were not France, Britain, Germany nor the Ottoman Empire but rather more internal enemies such as above said Indians.
While the France Indian wars before independence had an European power as a foe, to America, the real threat came from hostile Indian attacks on their settlements, with the Indians backed up by French power. It would take expansion and the first adversial contact with Mexico before it came into conflict with another enemy state that had links to the outside world.
America reliance on industrial goods from Europe, and her later trade needs to export to Europe are similarly cultural factors against isolation.

If so, what were the physical reasons for an isolationist policy? The fact that America had no real threat and barriers behind two oceans? The immense technological and logistic barriers against invasion, and similarly, against American projection of power overseas?
Or was it cultural reasons such as American exceptionalism due to its geographic strata and the American revolution?


What about China? Enough has been said about Chinese conservatism and the political battles between enunchs and Confucianism. Left unsaid however is the huge immense physical barriers for isolationism. The Gobi desert, the Himalayans, the arid north and the unsuitability for Chinese agriculture, or indeed, an fixed agriculture state. Indeed, Chinese expansion into the wet south was first inhibited by physical factors such as the need to develop and enhance rice agriculture and river technology in the Spring/Autumn period. Even now in the modern era, physical barriers still inhibit Chinese development and transport into the Sichuan province, the original launching point for Chinese trade and expansion westward into the Silk road(well, there is Xinjiang).
On the other hand, naval technology could overcome such physical barriers relatively easily. The development of a naval expedition in the Qin and Han dynasty showed China expansion into Indochina, Korea and perhaps even the Malayan pennisula.(Albeit, I don't know any archaelogical evidence other than some scripture for the last). Still, physical barriers such as the relatively large investment in wealth and resource allocation are a problem. Lastly, chinese expansion was met by the resource limitations of her original launching points and SEA states, which were not underdeveloped political units ripe for exploitation then.


Japan would appear to pose extremely interesting questions. For one, her physical isolation is unique amongst our three civilisations. The technological means of reaching Japan prevented any contact other than from Korea and China until late in her history. Japan however did not adopt isolationism as a guiding policy until the Shogunate. At one point in time, Japan did have the most developed and numerous arsenal in the world.........

I don't think claiming to be speical needs to be even considered - every empire in history has claimed to be something special.

Thanas wrote:I don't think claiming to be speical needs to be even considered - every empire in history has claimed to be something special.

True. But American exceptionalism in its early history was touted as a reason for it to be seperate from European affairs and European wars. In contrast, the Roman Empire as the bastion of civilisation or other civilisations claim to being unique and sets it apart doesn't actually argue for the civilisation to be isolated from other countries.

China "Middle Kingdom" status was also a cultural reason for its xenophobia and thus, its decision to isolate itself from others.

Its not the "I special" that counts, its the "I'm special, so that's a reason I should be isolated" that does.

Well, physical factors always shape cultural ideas. Between staying where they are and trying to spread out into the world, most people stick to the familiar. The reason for isolationism could also be found about how hard it is to contact the outside world. Learning foreign languages, making contacts and selling export was a significant financial risk for established traders, never mind a nation's few, hired men trying to reach out. Diplomacy required a lot money to happen and there is the fear that a bad faux pas might lead to war with some distant nation.

I think it should also be asked what is isolationism in this context? Was America's idea to isolate themselves from European politics an act of moving away or more like a political manoeuvre to not get involved with the war but still sell them any number of guns and supplies (I apologise for my ignorance on the details of these acts, if this was not the case)? Did China took isolationism to preserve its internal stability (or at least, thought to having this effect)?

Physical factors are very important. Some kingdom/tribe/culture/whatever can want to be isolationist all it wants, but if the neighbors don't allow it to (because they want their stuff), sucks for their little scheme. Physical isolation (water, sheer distance, whatever) makes the neighbors less likely to try to invade or something else isolation-breaking. Isolation also keeps a group from seeing other groups and wanting their stuff in turn.

Well, there is a reason why I included 3 specific case studies.
Which factors were more important for them?

In America at least, I think you can't seperate out the physical journey of the immigrant population to the United States from the later development of American exeptionalism. I imagine that, given how arduous and difficult the journey was for most immigrants, that a lot of them were quite eager to attribute their survival to divine intervention. If you're willing to reach that conclusion, it's not much of a leap from there to assume that the Almighty has some sort of special plan for your social experiment in the New World.

Ultimately the physical boundaries give a framework for cultural tendencies and norms to develop. However, as technology and communication advances eliminate the boundaries presented by geographical concerns, they become decidedly less important.

I do think physical and specifically geological barriers can be a significant factor behind various types of issolationism.

However I do think that in the case of the US you need to understand the motivations behind such policies at various times.

When George Washington was giving his address, the United States was fairly weak and potentially quite vulnerable if France or Great Britain in particular specifically targeted it. (The War of 1812 actually clearly showed some of these vulnerabilities although its true the UK was not heavily motivated to aggressively seek territorial gains at that time.) Permanent alliances which could force the US to get involved in conflicts were just a bad idea given the US was isolated by geography and could therefore ordinarily avoid getting involved in things. The US also clearly lacked the ability the project sufficient power to have any real impact in Europe itself. In other words there were quite pragmatic reasons behind the policy.

Post WW1 the considerations were different although geography very much played a role. While other elements of the US military may have been weak, the US did in fact maintain a very powerful navy to ensure the US was safe from invasion. To a great degree this actually did work with the only navy potentially able to realistically defeat the US until into the second half of the 1930's being Great Britain. (Which explains why the US military did have plans to if necessary fight the UK which included potentially invading Canada.) In fact, by the start of the 1930s if anything the US was getting more secure navally since in the unlikely event of a war with the UK, its superior aircraft carriers could potentially provide an advantage.

While the Japanese attack on Pear Harbor showed the US naval advantage in battleships which still would have actually existed without the impact of carriers was no longer there, (while many of the the US battleships had limitations, they had superior numbers and should still have had the edge in a flat out full fledge fleet engagement without any involvement by aircraft) the continental US proper was in reality still safe from Japan due to Japan's logistical limitations and even Hawaii could not be realistically successfully invaded with Japan's other conquest targets. The reality was neither Italy or Germany, or even the two combined, ever had surface navies potentially capable of actually defeating the US navy once Germany handed over/scuttled most of its navy in 1919, and without this an invasion of the US was clearly a non-starter. (Basically baring a scenario where the UK outright handed over its navy to Germany even in a "best case" scenario for Hitler he was not going to plausibly be in position to actually invade the US anytime especially soon so in that respect the issolationists were in fact right. Its only when you contemplate the longer term implications of a Nazi or completely Soviet dominated Europe along with other considerations that the problems with such a policy become apparent.)

Early America could not fund wars with European Powers.
Early America could not afford trade disruption by entanglement.
Internal political division would have been aggrevated leading to sooner civil war.
Red Tribes and Nations would have been used as proxies against Early America, making their subduing and displacement much harder.
Early America's breeding population would have been mauled and slaughtered by wars with European Powers.
War in the Canadas, the Caribbean, in Florida, in Ohio and the Western Frontier, west of the Mississippi, with Mexico, and eventually on the Pacific Coast would have been inevitable.
Territorial expansion (Manifest Destiny) would have been impeded.
The Democratic Experiment would have been directly imperilled.

Early America was aloof, not isolationist; and this was a cultural decision made on economic sense. Economic sense is something bred from a middle class interested in survival, not ideologue aristocrats.

The Monroe Doctrine is an extension of that, securing the Western Hemisphere (a buffer for America) from European power games. By regarding the foreign activities of post Civil War America we can see that it was not isolationist and the aloofness displayed before both world wars was simply a reluctance to become directly involved in the bloody European theatre.


Consider Burma, Cambodia, and North Korea; all places pushed into isolation by their regime's cultural views of the outside world. Switzerland, however, in its famous neutrality is also isolationist and this is certainly bred from practical neccessity instead of physical factors or ideology.


The Mongol Yuan Dynasty saw China (as Today) an exporting powerhouse. The Yuan Dynasty also realized a China united with the related outlying regions (Tibet, Manchuria, Mongolia, Annam). When the Ming's siezed control it was as a Chinese revolt against Mongols and though they attempted to recreate the Mongol imperialism and trade, it couldn't be justified against "traditionalism". The Mongol Eunuch adventurers were replaced by Chinese Mandarins. The trend was again cultural.

The Qing Dynasty and Early Communist China eras I wont comment on. Likewise, I don't know enough about Japan to comment. To me, isolationism seems entirely based on cultural decissions. Sometimes this decission is aided by physical parameters but at every instance that physical isolation is ended cultures move to interact and only fray into isolationism when controlled by prejudiced ideologues or deemed worthy by prudent econmics and preservation.