AHC: Wank China AND Japan!

Everyone loves a good Japan-wank. Visions of cyberpunk mechs fill our easily satisfied minds as we see that wonderful big blob of yellow smeared all over the edges of the map. We feel a bit guilty about throwing Korea and the Philippines under the Co-Prosperity bus, but it's a small price to pay for a geisha robot in every garage.

Thing is, I also love a good China-wank. Puke-inducing green or Mao red, China deserves better than to be chopped up into manageable pieces by mapmakers bothered by the logic of "More than one billion peeps = probably a big deal". And since we're past the silly idea of Cyberpunk Japan, we have embraced the totally not-silly idea of Postcyberpunk China. But those are both fun. Why do we have to choose?

So how can we create a situation in which both Japan and China are more powerful and richer than they are/have been in OTL? Enemies or allies, space-filling empires or fun-sized superpowers, all I ask is that the Yellow Peril is more perilous than ever! (Yellowness may vary.) You may put the POD whenever you like, although I would prefer reasonably modern (i.e. after 1850-ish) ideas.

Wank China first, and Japan seeing that it would be unwise to confront China's land power, opt for a maritime strategy. Korea remains independent as a buffer.

To do that, China needed to focus its money and resources on land power (army and railway) , and have a small, defensive navy.

But prior to that, Qing rule has to end in the mid-nineteenth century.

Green Painting said:

Wank China first, and Japan seeing that it would be unwise to confront China's land power, opt for a maritime strategy. Korea remains independent as a buffer.

To do that, China needed to focus its money and resources on land power (army and railway) , and have a small, defensive navy.

But prior to that, Qing rule has to end in the mid-nineteenth century.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ about the idea to end Qing rule at mid 19th century, unless it's a relatively peaceful transition of power or Russia suffers from serious trouble in ATL, Xinjiang, Mongolia and Manchuria are likely going to be taken by Russia when China is busy fighting a civil war.

Have China conquer Japan very early on and absorb into Chinese civilization. The need for a large fleet of merchant vessels to keep Japan within the Chinese economic system leads to a maritime culture much more prominent than that which existed IOTL. This, in turn, promotes overseas expansion, a desire for trade, and a desire to explore.

Sharunaku said:

I beg to differ about the idea to end Qing rule at mid 19th century, unless it's a relatively peaceful transition of power or Russia suffers from serious trouble in ATL, Xinjiang, Mongolia and Manchuria are likely going to be taken by Russia when China is busy fighting a civil war.

Click to expand...

China was already fighting a civil war at that period, called Taiping Rebellion(A set of many other rebellions broke out simultaneous to the Taipings, including the Nian, the Dungans and even the Black-flag Army), and the loss of lives were just enormous, caused more by pillaging of government troops than of rebels.

A large chunk of Manchuria DID go to The Czar.

But at least China should have gained something out of that bloodshed.

A new dynasty usually comes with a redistribution of land, the rearrangement of the government's tax base, a re-shuffle of the military system, etc., things you need to revitalize a country.

Green Painting said:

China was already fighting a civil war at that period, called Taiping Rebellion(A set of many other rebellions broke out simultaneous to the Taipings, including the Nian, the Dungans and even the Black-flag Army), and the loss of lives were just enormous, caused more by pillaging of government troops than of rebels.

A large chunk of Manchuria DID go to The Czar.

But at least China should have gained something out of that bloodshed.

A new dynasty usually comes with a redistribution of land, the rearrangement of the government's tax base, a re-shuffle of the military system, etc., things you need to revitalize a country.

Click to expand...

But who's going to do that? The Muslims, Tibetans, and Mongols just want to be left alone, and Hong Xiuquan really doesn't strike me as an enlightened leader.

An even higher challenge could be to wank China AND Korea!

Emperor Joker said:

But who's going to do that? The Muslims, Tibetans, and Mongols just want to be left alone, and Hong Xiuquan really doesn't strike me as an enlightened leader.

Click to expand...

Anyone other than Hong Xiuquan in the Taiping ranks?

Or else, before the death of Li Xiucheng, he advised Zeng Guofan to abandon the Qing dynasty and declare himself the king... But that would mean more bloodshed than OTL.

I'm not sure about the tibetans, but Mongolian population was stagnant during Qing rule under the influence of Buddhist Asceticism, so even if they wanted to take part in the game of thrones, they were too undermanned to do so.

The muslims were extremely cruel towards besieged Han civilians in Shaanxi and Gansu (equally cruel were the Qing reprisals against the muslims). I'm not sure whether they wanted to take their Jihad to other parts of China. But again, all those bloodshed of the Dungan Revolt might have been avoided if there was a swift Taiping victory.

You don't have to get rid of the Qing Dynasty and as people have pointed out, it's not the best thing to do so either. You need to remember that if there was resistance to change, a lot of it also came from the Han Confucian literati... so a Han dynasty wouldn't have changed anything (and judging from the Taiping's attitude towards Western powers, it would have been even worse).

But what you do need is strong leaders within the Qing that stand up with the likes of Kangxi, Qianlong etc. As it was the late Qing from 1850-1911 was dominated by young rulers - average age of accession for the last 4 emperors was 8 and average age at death/abdication was 23. Now this failure could have been rectified by strong regents who sought reform, but unfortunately Cixi did not turn out to be that sort of character (and regents have less authority to call for earth-shattering reforms, in any case).

Such Qing leaders could have suppressed the demands of the Chinese Confucian bureaucracy and literati in favor of reform, using all sorts of traditional and charismatic authority to impose his view on China. Important Qing leaders like Li Hongzhang and Zeng Guofan were quite a bit more worldly than modern China gives them credit for, and the scale of what they did during the so-called 'Tongzhi Restoration' isn't something to sniff at. What they needed was stronger backing than what they got in OTL to overcome reactionary resistance in China as a whole - which is why a mature, competent Qing Emperor was required.

As for Japan, it can just do its own thing OTL. A modernizing China will probably still be held in (begrudging) awe by Japan, and so Japan will probably respect China's traditional influences in Northeast Asia. As a result, Japan probably looks towards the Pacific, or maybe the Philippines.

Re: Green Painting - Feng Yuxiang, had he not died in Hunan during the early Taiping, was an open-enough figure (the Zhou Enlai to Hong's Mao Zedong, if you will). Li Xiucheng also demonstrated a willingness, even admiration, of the West; but unfortunately he was nowhere near as great a perceiver of the West as Li Hongzhang was.

profxyz said:

You don't have to get rid of the Qing Dynasty and as people have pointed out, it's not the best thing to do so either. You need to remember that if there was resistance to change, a lot of it also came from the Han Confucian literati... so a Han dynasty wouldn't have changed anything (and judging from the Taiping's attitude towards Western powers, it would have been even worse).

But what you do need is strong leaders within the Qing that stand up with the likes of Kangxi, Qianlong etc. As it was the late Qing from 1850-1911 was dominated by young rulers - average age of succession for the last 4 emperors was 8 and average age at death/abdication was 23. Now this failure could have been rectified by strong regents who sought reform, but unfortunately Cixi did not turn out to be that sort of character (and regents have less authority to call for earth-shattering reforms, in any case).

Such Qing leaders could have suppressed the demands of the Chinese Confucian bureaucracy and literati in favor of reform, using all sorts of traditional and charismatic authority to impose his view of China. Important Qing leaders like Li Hongzhang and Zeng Guofan were quite a bit more worldly than modern China gives them credit for, and the scale of what they did during the so-called 'Tongzhi Restoration' isn't something to sniff at. What they needed was stronger backing than what they got in OTL to overcome reactionary resistance - which is why a mature, competent Qing Emperor was required then.

Click to expand...

Late Qing Emperors were no more than prisoners on their own thrones, it happened to all Chinese dynasties, and I don't believe Cixi alone was responsible for this... The heydays of Qing rule was gone, that's all.

And IOTL, the ones who carried out reforms were mainly the privincial governnors... So even in the very unlikely event that Qing did produce a strong emperor, he would be more of a liability to reforms, like Abdulhamid of Turkey.

Agree with you on Japan, though. If China could counter the Russian threat alone, Japan could have a free hand expanding her Empire in SE Asia or even African and South America.

Maybe the Dynastic Cycle can be broken after all. If the communists are dealt with in the early 30s, then Chiang Kai-Shek can focus his efforts on the Japanese, then build China's industry. It wouldn't be paradise, but getting rid of The Great Leap Forward can only help things along.

Well, part of the reason why they were prisoners in their own thrones was that late Qing leaders were basically children when they ascended, with the exception of Xianfeng who wasn't great. Guangxu to me seems like the archetypical 'tragic emperor' character, absolutely born in the wrong time to do anything about it. Had he ascended the throne at 20 (and earlier, before Cixi managed to consolidate power), he would have probably been a reasonable enough emperor. Of course, creating a situation where mature emperors can be installed upon the throne is difficult, given the circumstances and in that sense I agree that the Qing was destined for failure.

It's true that provincial governors took the initiative, but with things like establishing a foreign ministry, a modern navy, and railroad planning it's clear that there was also a national drive towards all of these things. Given this, it's the job of the Emperor to promote the practices/people that help the country and spread their ideas throughout China. A contemporary example is Deng Xiaoping holding up the famous 'Xiaogang Pact' for the whole country to see in his quest for agricultural reform. You will notice that Deng Xiaoping was also, basically, an absolute ruler.

I think Japanese South America is pushing it (is Admiral Togo going to go all Pearl Harbor on San Francisco or something ) but I do think there would be a strong movement to get Hawaii for Japan.

Anaxagoras said:

Have China conquer Japan very early on and absorb into Chinese civilization. The need for a large fleet of merchant vessels to keep Japan within the Chinese economic system leads to a maritime culture much more prominent than that which existed IOTL. This, in turn, promotes overseas expansion, a desire for trade, and a desire to explore.

Click to expand...

Ignoring the fact that this does not fulfill the OP, as Japan would not exist in the scenario, this would have been virtually impossible. China would first have to go through Korea to even contemplate invading Japan, due to logistical reasons. Specifically, the Han only ended up retaining Liaodong and Lelang (Pyongyang) soon after conquering Gojoseon, and was generally limited to exerting indirect influence over most of Manchuria and the Korean Peninsula. The Cao Wei did manage to sack Goguryeo's capital after tensions boiled over, but voluntarily decided to withdraw altogether, mostly due to the extremely inhospitable terrain. On the other hand, it took 70 years for the Sui and Tang just to conquer Goguryeo, and withdrew from the peninsula altogether after losing the Silla-Tang War, after which Silla decided to sever diplomatic relations for 50 years. The Tang then lost Manchuria only 30 years after it had conquered Goguryeo, due to Balhae's establishment by local tribes, and was forced to exert indirect influence until its eventual demise.

In other words, given the numerous difficulties China faced when attempting to conquer various Korean polities, seizing Japan wouldn't even have been under consideration.

profxyz said:

Well, part of the reason why they were prisoners in their own thrones was that late Qing leaders were basically children when they ascended, with the exception of Xianfeng who wasn't great. Guangxu to me seems like the archetypical 'tragic emperor' character, absolutely born in the wrong time to do anything about it. Had he ascended the throne at 20 (and earlier, before Cixi managed to consolidate power), he would have probably been a reasonable enough emperor. Of course, creating a situation where mature emperors can be installed upon the throne is difficult, given the circumstances and in that sense I agree that the Qing was destined for failure.

Click to expand...

Amen to that.

profxyz said:

It's true that provincial governors took the initiative, but with things like establishing a foreign ministry, a modern navy, and railroad planning it's clear that there was also a national drive towards all of these things. Given this, it's the job of the Emperor to promote the practices/people that help the country and spread their ideas throughout China. A contemporary example is Deng Xiaoping holding up the famous 'Xiaogang Pact' for the whole country to see in his quest for agricultural reform. You will notice that Deng Xiaoping was also, basically, an absolute ruler.

Click to expand...

Deng was an old fox, he was extremely good at making all sides happy. If he started his reform by abolishing a few ministries, and sacking a bunch of redundant ministers like Guangxu did in the hundred days, his reform would be die in its infancy.

But Qing emperors, with all their Confucian education and palace childhood, it was hard for them to become master of politics.

profxyz said:

I think Japanese South America is pushing it (is Admiral Togo going to go all Pearl Harbor on San Francisco or something ) but I do think there would be a strong movement to get Hawaii for Japan.

Click to expand...

Meiji Japan, with all its Samurais craving for battlefield glories, was bound to go for expansion. Hawaii and Philippines along would be too small for their appetite, if South America was too far fetched, Indonesia might do.

Green Painting said:

Late Qing Emperors were no more than prisoners on their own thrones, it happened to all Chinese dynasties, and I don't believe Cixi alone was responsible for this... The heydays of Qing rule was gone, that's all.

And IOTL, the ones who carried out reforms were mainly the privincial governnors... So even in the very unlikely event that Qing did produce a strong emperor, he would be more of a liability to reforms, like Abdulhamid of Turkey.

Agree with you on Japan, though. If China could counter the Russian threat alone, Japan could have a free hand expanding her Empire in SE Asia or even African and South America.

Click to expand...

How was Abdul Hamit liability to reform ?

With China's resource, Chinese Abdul Hamit will have a field day, especially should he had the Turkish Sultan's diplomatic capabilities as well.

Emperor Joker said:

But who's going to do that? The Muslims, Tibetans, and Mongols just want to be left alone, and Hong Xiuquan really doesn't strike me as an enlightened leader.

Click to expand...

The Panthay rebellion appears to have had pretty same leadership, what if you somehow got them to win.

Ridwan Asher said:

How was Abdul Hamit liability to reform ?

With China's resource, Chinese Abdul Hamit will have a field day, especially should he had the Turkish Sultan's diplomatic capabilities as well.

Click to expand...

I don't want to pass judgement on the sultan's legacy within Turkey. But his ruling style was... Autocratic and heavy-handed to say the least, and the results were ineffective based on the provinces lost and the debt owed to the west. The fact that his rule united a range of totally different people (The Young Turks), whose only thing in common was their hatred of the Sultan, was quite remarkable.

In the context of China, the concept of Kingship was quite different. In the beginning of a dynasty, the Emperor could afford to be autocratic (like Hongwu and Yongle of Ming, Kangxi and Qianlong of Qing). But towards the end, An Emperor is more like a chief-moderator and an idol. Such an emperor could afford to be viewed as deceived or powerless, but not as a bloody tyrant. If he tries to be strong in the Hamidian way (massacres, censors, spies and all), even the bureaucracy and the provinces (let alone the general society) wouldn't buy it. He would end up creating more cracks within the imperial system, or even incite outright rebellion.

Apologies for hijacking the thread and filling it with Qing political discussions, but consider OTL Japan was pretty wanked, the only thing we need to do was to change its directions...

Would there still be an Anglo-Japanese alliance if Japan opt for an maritime strategy? Hawaii and Philippines would be OK, but I don't see anyone would be happy to see Japan annexing New Guinea or Indonesia.

(P.s. China needed an Ataturk, not Abdulhamid)

Alkahest said:

Everyone loves a good Japan-wank. Visions of cyberpunk mechs fill our easily satisfied minds as we see that wonderful big blob of yellow smeared all over the edges of the map. We feel a bit guilty about throwing Korea and the Philippines under the Co-Prosperity bus, but it's a small price to pay for a geisha robot in every garage.

Click to expand...

I forgot to address this earlier. While Japanese anime and manga became internationalized since the late 20th century, the Korean Wave (Hallyu) has recently (within the last decade or so) influenced both China and Japan to a significant degree, not to mention other regions, such as Southeast Asia, and has been one of the few major influences to filter into North Korea. However, it has generally remained as a niche market within the Western world due to the continuous dominance of the US film and music industries. Various politicians across the world (including Obama) have commented on this phenomenon, and it's also worth noting that although "Gangnam Style" bucked the K-pop trend, its sudden success also translated into higher interest in the Korean Wave as a whole. Part of this is due to the fact that Korea historically never pursued territorial claims outside of Manchuria and the Korean Peninsula, minimizing political issues, as opposed to China (Southeast Asian tributaries) and Japan (Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere).

In short, Japan retaining control over Korea would not be a small price to pay, especially given the fact that the country's expansion as a whole would have alienated everyone living outside of the empire. Given that the size and receptiveness of the US market had been a major factor in the spread of Japan's soft power, Japanese cultural influences would have been extremely marginalized if the country had retained most of its overseas territories, as the US and China would have remained antagonistic in this scenario.

On the other hand, it's also important to note that Mao decided not to take over Korea, partly due to its long history of a separate ethnic identity, along with political autonomy.

The Ubbergeek said:

An even higher challenge could be to wank China AND Korea!

Click to expand...

You know, if I wasn't afraid of coming across as a spammer, I'd be tempted to start a thread on that topic as well. Korea is not wanked enough, in my opinion.

Alkahest said:

You know, if I wasn't afraid of coming across as a spammer, I'd be tempted to start a thread on that topic as well. Korea is not wanked enough, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I don't see why you'd be seen as a spammer as long as you're reasonable.

However, "wanking" both would be close to impossible, as China continuously faced severe difficulties for over two millennia when confronting various hostile entities within Central, Northeast, and Southeast Asia, not to mention occasionally overextending its possessions, causing instability soon afterward. In addition, given that Korea's territorial claims frequently overlapped those of China until the 14th century or so, China's influence in Northeast Asia would have to be severely curtailed long before 1000 in order for Korea to significantly expand its influence (political and cultural) for centuries, which would also most likely entail more Korean influences in Japan than had occurred IOTL.

The other main alternatives would be significant divergences around 1350 or 1450-1550, although in these scenarios, most of the repercussions would not be felt until the 20th century or so, given that Korea would almost certainly remain as a Chinese tributary until the mid to late 19th century or so. The main reason why Korea generally isn't discussed in detail is that there aren't enough detailed sources about Korea in English, so many of the scenarios that are proposed (here or elsewhere) don't tend to be particularly realistic.

I'm currently writing a TL that focuses on a "Korea-wank" (sig), although as I stated earlier, this also means that China's influence will probably be somewhat curtailed. In addition, the PoD occurs AD 395, making it extremely difficult to conjecture possible outcomes, as there isn't enough extant material even after consulting Korean sources.