I think the key questions of this thread would be which nation could have taken the most control of China in the 19th century, and how would fare under their control?
Would Qing China done better as a colony by foreigners?
- Thread starter Strategos' Risk
- Start date
Depends on the level of exploitation, management, and such. Qing China could very well have been another India in the hands of the Brits. I'm not entirely sure how competent the French were. And the Germans... well..
I'll throw my lot in with the Brits. Exploitation or not, they do have the best chance.
I'll throw my lot in with the Brits. Exploitation or not, they do have the best chance.
They were pretty much the least inhumane of the colonial empires, and had successes in South Africa, India, Singapore, Hong Kong, Canada, ANZAC, etc.
Personally, if the British could have modernized China a la India I would be quite interested. However, I'm afraid they would have distributed and sold even more opium.
Personally, if the British could have modernized China a la India I would be quite interested. However, I'm afraid they would have distributed and sold even more opium.
ninebucks
Banned
I can imagine the French holding the southern provinces and doing quite well. Organised revolts tend to come from the north whereas the south is traditionally more pragmatic and almost stoical.
Due to the fact that they would be nextdoor neighbours, British India and French China would be in direct competition, and you know what they say about competition raising everyone's game.
Due to the fact that they would be nextdoor neighbours, British India and French China would be in direct competition, and you know what they say about competition raising everyone's game.
Faeelin
Banned
ANZAC and Canada don't seem to be fair comparisons, unless the British plan on slaughtering the Han.
And India? Mmm, I guess a large poor democracy is a success, compared to what was there before then.
I know Canada and ANZAC can't be used as examples, since they were white settler colonies, vs. India and Africa which were economic colonies. Thing is, how well did France do with Algeria and Indochina? Spain with Mexico? Germany with Qingdao? I'm not sure they have a great record either. A-H was landlocked, so the chances of them having a colony is nil. Russia? Nope. France might be the other competitor, if they do things well. The Americans might be possible, if things were quieter (ie. no Civil War).
If France or Britain, it would have to be really soon after Qianlong's reign. And they'd probably have to do things together. Maybe get the Dutch on board too?
If France or Britain, it would have to be really soon after Qianlong's reign. And they'd probably have to do things together. Maybe get the Dutch on board too?
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Do you have your sarcasm font on? Because what was there before was a pretty darned rich place.
Faeelin
Banned
Am I ever sarcastic?
In all seriousness, British rule in India wasn't terrible. Not great, not terrible.
I am extremely skeptical that the British, coming into power by overthrowing the Qing (or picking up the pieces in a scarred and fragmented China after the Taiping collapse) will really do better than the Qing did.
But at least the Chinese get to receive a parliamentary democracy after the British give China self rule, around the same time they gave it to Hong Kong.
Faeelin
Banned
Actually, Qindao was very successful, from an economic point of view.
Apparently they still brew good beer there.
You want a success story for China, based on extrapolations from OTL colonies?
Japan.
Faeelin
Banned
If the Japanese did it?
Probably less than if a nation of Christians with no knowledge of Confucianism did it.
19th, huh? Well, I think Germany could be a good match for them. Then again I think the Qing could have come out of the 19th century better than OTL if the right reforms change their society enough...
Flocculencio
Donor
So? India's still just as rich if you look in the right places. The elites were insanely rich then and they're still insanely rich. The common people were downtrodden, caste-ridden and dirt-poor then and since the British took over and then left they've been slightly less downtrodden, caste-ridden and dirt-poor. Small improvements are still improvements.
The problem with China being taken over in this time period (assuming that the process is only completed by the late 19th C) is that you might have a similar problem to Africa. The colonisers might only be there long enough to destroy and disrupt the traditional Confucian power structures and in leaving might leave a vacuum to be filled by chaos, unlike in India and Malaysia where the Brits were around long enough to at least establish Anglicised local elites able to implement parliamentary democracies.
I hate the word 'colony' in this context...A colony to me implies actual colonies where Europeans went over to establish new settlements.
But meh.
Britain all the way.
We did well in Hong Kong and India so it'd be somewhere in between I'd guess- probally a few very well off Hong Kongs around the coast and inland not too dissimilar to before only with better human rights, more freedom for the poor et al.
But meh.
Britain all the way.
We did well in Hong Kong and India so it'd be somewhere in between I'd guess- probally a few very well off Hong Kongs around the coast and inland not too dissimilar to before only with better human rights, more freedom for the poor et al.
Flocculencio
Donor
Really? I guess I'm just more used to the concept of Crown Colonies like Singapore, Malacca, Penang and Hong Kong. When I think of the white settler colonies I tend to backward project the term Dominion even though that's a relatively recent coinage.
Thande
Donor
You could say exactly the same about India.
For China to be similarly colonised by a European power (and let's face it, it's probably going to be Britain regardless of which we think is best), we just need:
1) Somewhat more European colonisation (I agree with Leej with that word, btw, but meh), with Macao and Hong Kong, plus the other settlements, being expanded.
2) A war in the late 19th/early 20th century which is like the Napoleonic Wars, i.e. most of the countries with colonies in China are either at war with Britain or overrun by Britain's enemies. So Britain takes over all those colonies and keeps them at the eventual peace settlement - save perhaps one or two which are reduced back to something the size of Macao and just consist of a single port, with Britain controlling the hinterland.
3) Qing China collapses and in the inevitable warlord period, the British back various sides against other sides, and end up vassalising the first as princely states and either installing new rulers and doing the same to the second, or else just destroying them and turning them over to direct Crown control.
Basically, in other words, the British need 'another' nineteenth century in order to do to China what they did to India. As Flocc said, the problem is that decolonisation might happen too fast after colonisation and leave China a wreck like OTL Africa (though I doubt it would be quite that bad).
Also Japan throws a spanner in the works - there was nothing quite analogous to it when the British were involved in India, and it was at least nominally a British ally at the end of the C19. Plus there's no East India Company (East China Company?
) this time around, and it was always profit margins rather than 'ooh, let's go grab some more land!' that drove British expansion in India, so...