Editing March First Movement (section)

=== United Kingdom ===

The [[Mass media in the United Kingdom|British media]] displayed a general lack of interest in the protests, publishing articles on the protests only weeks after they first began and which were merely reprints of reports sent to Europe by ''Reuters'' correspondents in China and Japan.<ref name="YNA 2019 9">{{Cite web |last=박 |first=대한 |date=2019-02-20 |script-title=ko:[외신속 3·1 운동] ⑨ '영일동맹' 허울에 英언론 日 '받아쓰기' 그쳐 |url=https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20190212161500085 |access-date=2024-05-01 |website=[[Yonhap News Agency]] |language=ko |archive-date=May 2, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240502000054/https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20190212161500085 |url-status=live }}</ref>{{Efn|These reports from ''Reuters'' also initially influenced coverage of the movement in the [[Mass media in France|French media]], with several French newspaper articles citing them as they described the protests as violent riots.<ref name="YNA 2019 10"/>}} These articles generally repeated the Japanese government line, describing the protests as violent riots incited by [[Bolshevism|Bolshevik]] Koreans based out of Shanghai, though ''[[The Guardian]]'' also reported eyewitness testimonies from Christian missionaries in Korea who claimed that Japanese forces committed atrocities against unarmed protestors. This mostly pro-Japanese coverage of the protests stood in contrast to reporting in China, the United States, Australia and Southeast Asia, which tended to be much more balanced; the [[Yonhap News Agency]] speculated that this was due to the [[Anglo-Japanese Alliance]] leading the British media to assume an unusually pro-Japanese stance.<ref name="YNA 2019 9" /> The [[Anglican Church of Korea]] reportedly attempted to maintain a middle ground position between what it viewed as Korean terrorism after the protests and the oppression of the Japanese colonial government. Anglican bishop [[Mark Trollope]] advocated for Japan's continued rule in Korea and praised the cultural rule reforms. The church's positions on these issues reportedly alienated potential Korean converts.<ref name=":8" /> 

In line with their media counterparts, the British government assumed a muted response to the protests, with no member of the [[Lloyd George ministry]] advocating for Korean independence.{{Sfn|Ku|2021|pp=114–115}} However, parts of the British public became more sympathetic towards Korean independence after the Jeamni massacre on 15 April, with the pro-Korean organisation [[The Friends of Korea]] ({{Langx|fr|Les Amis de la Corée}}) being formed in Britain and France. Several senior British officials, including [[William Royds]], [[William Max Muller]] and [[George Curzon, 1st Marquess Curzon of Kedleston|George Curzon]], expressed support for the Koreans.{{Sfn|Ku|2021|pp=114–117}} Curzon and [[Beilby Alston]] pressured the Japanese government to end the violence, with Alston reportedly informing the Japanese authorities that they were "outhunning the [[Huns]]" and "outrivalling Germans in war". These officials advocated for Japan to grant Korea varying degrees of self-governance, which came to naught in the face of strong Japanese opposition.{{Sfn|Ku|2021|pp=115–116}} During the early 1920s, [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour Party]] MPs [[Arthur Hayday]] and [[Thomas Walter Grundy]] repeatedly mentioned Korean opposition to Japanese rule in the [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom|House of Commons]], requesting the British government to bring it up with their Japanese counterparts. However, none of these efforts resulted in significant changes in Japan's policy towards Korea.<ref name="EncyKorea Movement" />

==== British Empire ====

Papers in [[British Malaya]], while still generally in line with reporting in the U.K., shared information about Japan's violent response. One article of ''[[The Malaya Tribune]]'' argued that Japan would not be able to stop the unrest through violence.<ref name="YNA 2019 12">{{Cite web |last=황 |first=철환 |date=2019-02-23 |script-title=ko:[외신속 3·1 운동] ⑫ '식민굴레' 동남아 언론의 동병상련…"계층넘어 韓人 단결" |url=https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20190213120400104 |access-date=2024-05-03 |website=[[Yonhap News Agency]] |language=ko}}</ref> A response to a reader question in the April 2 issue of ''[[The Straits Times]]'' attempted to justify why Korea's sovereignty was not approved for discussion at the Paris Peace Conference.<ref name="YNA 2019 12" /> For [[British India]], a 2019 South Korean examination did not find many newspapers articles about the movement. A Yonhap reporter theorized that this was possibly due to India being a British colony at the time. One article entitled "Korean Unrest" was published in ''[[The Hindu]]'' on March 27, and included synthesized information from ''Reuters'' reports. This and another report on April 16 described the movement as a violent armed rebellion. Later coverage of Korean issues in the paper is reportedly infrequent and brief.<ref name="YNA 2019 12" />