Chinese siberia

blueczar · Jul 9, 2009

Suppose that China colonised Siberia before Russia did, 17th century or so, and managed to hold on to this territory, how does this affect the events of the 19th,20th,21st centuries?

Would there be a Chinese colony in Alaska which was also purchased by USA? How different would world war I be? A faster defeat of Russia? No Russian Revolution?

Would China have still been invaded by all the allied powers because of the Boxer Rebellion-style uprising or would it be too large now? Would there be a warlord-era in China? Who would win and what would China be today? Nationalist? Communist? Still divided? If there was still a communist revolution in China would there be a Cold War between USA and China instead of USSR? How much different would this be?

Would the nazis have still come to power in Germany and maybe they could defeat Russia quickly? Would Japan have been able to invade China now that it is larger and has many more resources?

DaSla · Jul 9, 2009

blueczar said:
Suppose that China colonised Siberia before Russia did, 17th century or so, and managed to hold on to this territory, how does this affect the events of the 19th,20th,21st centuries?

Would there be a Chinese colony in Alaska which was also purchased by USA? How different would world war I be? A faster defeat of Russia? No Russian Revolution?

Would China have still been invaded by all the allied powers because of the Boxer Rebellion-style uprising or would it be too large now? Would there be a warlord-era in China? Who would win and what would China be today? Nationalist? Communist? Still divided? If there was still a communist revolution in China would there be a Cold War between USA and China instead of USSR? How much different would this be?

Would the nazis have still come to power in Germany and maybe they could defeat Russia quickly? Would Japan have been able to invade China now that it is larger and has many more resources?

Such a POD would radically alter the course of history to the present day, so what you are asking, if what has occurred in OTL would be present in this ATL, the answer is no.

othyrsyde · Jul 10, 2009

wow, China's big!

blueczar · Jul 10, 2009

DarkSlavik said:
Such a POD would radically alter the course of history to the present day, so what you are asking, if what has occurred in OTL would be present in this ATL, the answer is no.

Yeah but it's interesting that its only a frozen wasteland thats changing hands which is having that big an effect on history.

Ofaloaf · Jul 10, 2009

Start working on the POD, and only after that's picked at go after butterflies

China? Go northwards in the 17th century? During the century when the old Ming dynasty fell to the Manchurian Qing dynasty which rushed in from the north in the first place and knew full well the value of the land north of the Buryats (nil)?

I don't see that as a particularly likely occurance. Outside of oil production, which is a relatively new development, and trade routes, Siberia's not good for a lot. It's got miserable soil with too small a period of time for agriculture to be worth it, and there's not terribly much there. It's the Great Plains of Asia, except without the soil quality needed for farming.

Not to mention the unexplained expansion westwards into traditional Turkic lands. Ming-dynasty policy was never much inclined towards westwards expansionism, and Qing-dynasty policy just wanted the northern Mongolian confederations to look to the Manchurians for leadership.

blueczar · Jul 10, 2009

Ofaloaf said:
China? Go northwards in the 17th century? During the century when the old Ming dynasty fell to the Manchurian Qing dynasty which rushed in from the north in the first place and knew full well the value of the land north of the Buryats (nil)?

I don't see that as a particularly likely occurance. Outside of oil production, which is a relatively new development, and trade routes, Siberia's not good for a lot. It's got miserable soil with too small a period of time for agriculture to be worth it, and there's not terribly much there. It's the Great Plains of Asia, except without the soil quality needed for farming.

Not to mention the unexplained expansion westwards into traditional Turkic lands. Ming-dynasty policy was never much inclined towards westwards expansionism, and Qing-dynasty policy just wanted the northern Mongolian confederations to look to the Manchurians for leadership.

China wouldn't have had to go very far north to get a hold of Siberia. The inhabitable part is a thin strip along the trans-Siberian railway which is right next to the border. Maybe the Chinese could take an interest in controlling the fur trade and reselling them to the Russians?

It does say something about Qing dynasty China's westward expansion, here in "China marches west" by Peter C. Perdue. They would just need to keep going a little further to get Central Asia.

Nugax · Jul 10, 2009

blueczar said:
China wouldn't have had to go very far north to get a hold of Siberia. The inhabitable part is a thin strip along the trans-Siberian railway which is right next to the border. Maybe the Chinese could take an interest in controlling the fur trade and reselling them to the Russians?

It does say something about Qing dynasty China's westward expansion, here in "China marches west" by Peter C. Perdue. They would just need to keep going a little further to get Central Asia.

Interesting definition of 'bit' considering it's a thousand miles of high mountains and chill deserts full of angry nomads. Plus when you get to the other side its boreal forest that the chinese had no experience exploiting/surviving.

Even if the Chinese could cross it, whoevers coming out of the Volga basin to contest it will have many advantages as a) the agricultural and technological package will be vastly more adapted to the conditions as they already live in siberia lite b) the have much smaller geographic barriers and the siberain river routes are excellent for east-west movement whilst shit for north-south c) its not even further away -Krasnoyarsk is a close to Moscow as it is to Beijing, d) siberias best starter trade good - furs, are in much higher demand in chilly europe.

Whilst China holding to the Amur Basin and Mongolia is perfectly feasible, them competeing with the Russians for Siberia is very much not, necessitating a PoD of removing a united Russian polity and China gaining a very loose suzerainity over a underused northern region.

rcduggan · Jul 10, 2009

We've discussed this before, and the general conclusion was that China has no impetus to expand into Siberia. What of value is in Siberia, beyond a few thousand nomadic tribesmen? AFAIK there is nothing in Siberia that 17th-century China could not obtain via trade. So the Qing dynasty has nothing to gain by expanding to the north.

virgulino · Jul 10, 2009

blueczar said:
Suppose that China colonised Siberia before Russia did, 17th century or so, and managed to hold on to this territory, how does this affect the events of the 19th,20th,21st centuries?

Would there be a Chinese colony in Alaska which was also purchased by USA? How different would world war I be? A faster defeat of Russia? No Russian Revolution?

Would China have still been invaded by all the allied powers because of the Boxer Rebellion-style uprising or would it be too large now? Would there be a warlord-era in China? Who would win and what would China be today? Nationalist? Communist? Still divided? If there was still a communist revolution in China would there be a Cold War between USA and China instead of USSR? How much different would this be?

Would the nazis have still come to power in Germany and maybe they could defeat Russia quickly? Would Japan have been able to invade China now that it is larger and has many more resources?

Where are the butterflies anyway? President Obama would still be elected the President of the USA?

tallwingedgoat · Jul 11, 2009

Nugax said:
Interesting definition of 'bit' considering it's a thousand miles of high mountains and chill deserts full of angry nomads. Plus when you get to the other side its boreal forest that the chinese had no experience exploiting/surviving.

But the Lake Baikal area is decent land, perfectly worthwhile. The Chinese may not have the means to do it, but the Manchus, Mongols did.

Even if the Chinese could cross it, whoevers coming out of the Volga basin to contest it will have many advantages as a) the agricultural and technological package will be vastly more adapted to the conditions as they already live in siberia lite b) the have much smaller geographic barriers and the siberain river routes are excellent for east-west movement whilst shit for north-south c) its not even further away -Krasnoyarsk is a close to Moscow as it is to Beijing, d) siberias best starter trade good - furs, are in much higher demand in chilly europe.

Manchuria and Mongolia are not so different from Siberia in climate. The Manchu led Qing empire therefore did posses the technological ability to colonize. I also disagree that the Siberian rivers would prove disadvantages, as they all run from south to north, making colonization from the south easier than from the west. As far as fur goes, the Chinese were big buyers of Russian fur. Many Russian Siberian towns existed only to trade with the Chinese.

The physical barriers are considerable however. Napoleon said of the three barriers, mountains, rivers, and deserts that make natural national borders, mountains make minor obstacles while deserts are the most problematic. The Ural mountains was Russia's barrier to overcome, while the Gobi desert was in China's way to Siberia.

Historically the Ming was not in the least bit interested in Siberia. It's the Manchus that were expansionist and prized fur. However by the time the Manchus were in a position to expand north the Russians were already firmly entrenched and it wasn't worth the effort to dislodge them just for the fur trade. The Treaty of Nurchinsk was the result of Manchu-Russian border conflicts and resulted in mutual accomodation.

For the Qing dynasty to take Siberia away from the Russians in the 17th century would require either a later arrival of Russians or a militarily stronger and more aggressive Qing empire.

Abdul Hadi Pasha · Jul 12, 2009

Nugax said:
Interesting definition of 'bit' considering it's a thousand miles of high mountains and chill deserts full of angry nomads. Plus when you get to the other side its boreal forest that the chinese had no experience exploiting/surviving.

Even if the Chinese could cross it, whoevers coming out of the Volga basin to contest it will have many advantages as a) the agricultural and technological package will be vastly more adapted to the conditions as they already live in siberia lite b) the have much smaller geographic barriers and the siberain river routes are excellent for east-west movement whilst shit for north-south c) its not even further away -Krasnoyarsk is a close to Moscow as it is to Beijing, d) siberias best starter trade good - furs, are in much higher demand in chilly europe.

Whilst China holding to the Amur Basin and Mongolia is perfectly feasible, them competeing with the Russians for Siberia is very much not, necessitating a PoD of removing a united Russian polity and China gaining a very loose suzerainity over a underused northern region.

Also, the "thin habitable strip" may appear that way if you look at a population map, but there is a "chicken and egg" situation there. The population is thicker along the Trans-Siberian rail line because the Trans-Siberian rail line is there. If it weren't, I'm not sure many Russian colonists would have preferred to move there.

Distance isn't necessarily a barrier to political control, nor is proximity a benefit - as you've pointed out, it's much more practicable to control Siberia from Moscow than it is from Beijing. The Golden Horde is a pretty impressive demonstration, if a bit of a backwards one.

One mountain range is way more of a barrier than several thousand miles of steppe.

Abdul Hadi Pasha · Jul 12, 2009

tallwingedgoat said:
Napoleon said of the three barriers, mountains, rivers, and deserts that make natural national borders, mountains make minor obstacles while deserts are the most problematic.

But wouldn't Napoleon's opinion be colored by the experience and technology to which he had access? He might consider a desert the most problematic obstacle, yet the Sahara has always been a conduit, not a barrier, to the peoples that had experience with it.

Hawkeye · Jul 12, 2009

blueczar said:
Yeah but it's interesting that its only a frozen wasteland thats changing hands which is having that big an effect on history.

Even when an individual takes a left turn when he should of made a right turn will have massive consequences in the future.

tallwingedgoat · Jul 13, 2009

Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
But wouldn't Napoleon's opinion be colored by the experience and technology to which he had access? He might consider a desert the most problematic obstacle, yet the Sahara has always been a conduit, not a barrier, to the peoples that had experience with it.

Deserts were not impassable, just hard to do so. Sure Caravans traversed the Sahara, but so the Alps also did not prevent trade. Mountains slowed down travellers, deserts killed them. Desert trade was relatively costly and typically only high value goods were economical to transport.

The Urals were not very formidable obstacles. As far as mountain ranges go, they were not so intimidating. Not only was it possible to get around it from the south, but there were Tartar towns to the east which were conquered and used as staging bases for gradual eastward movement of settlers.

For these reasons I think natural barriers were the more critical of factors.

Mr Stereo1 · Jul 13, 2009

Ofaloaf said:
China? Go northwards in the 17th century? During the century when the old Ming dynasty fell to the Manchurian Qing dynasty which rushed in from the north in the first place and knew full well the value of the land north of the Buryats (nil)?

I don't see that as a particularly likely occurance. Outside of oil production, which is a relatively new development, and trade routes, Siberia's not good for a lot. It's got miserable soil with too small a period of time for agriculture to be worth it, and there's not terribly much there. It's the Great Plains of Asia, except without the soil quality needed for farming.

Not to mention the unexplained expansion westwards into traditional Turkic lands. Ming-dynasty policy was never much inclined towards westwards expansionism, and Qing-dynasty policy just wanted the northern Mongolian confederations to look to the Manchurians for leadership.

Yes, Siberia is pretty useless up until the 20th century, the main reason that Russia expanded in that direction was as a pride thing. All the other powers were building empires, so they felt they had to as well, so they went for quantity before quality, and so we have the underdeveloped overexpanded Russia of the last 1800s. That's why they didn't develop us to European standards, they had a massive resources drain.

Umbral · Jul 13, 2009

So...if something kicks Russia down a bit so they don't expand east as fast, we end up with a much stronger Chinese presence in Siberia, and a smaller, more modernized Russia?

DCInsider · Jul 13, 2009

China controls Siberia

Blueczar,
The map you posted is essentially the blueprint for the following:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123836150260267093.html

In "Uhappy China", the underlying theme now is that the concept of "liebensraum" needs to be eventually rehabilitated because China's natural grwoth and desire for global leadership requires resources- and land- all of which are within Beijing's grasp, but is inder comtrol fo Russia. There are lots of comments on this - as far early as 1954, USSR was concerned that China was still publishing books that showed large parts of Siberia and Far East under Chinese control.

But a China as massive as having all of Siberia under its control would be only as strong as its government. If there would be internal rebellions like the Taiping Rebellion in mid-19th century, other great powers would seek to take advantage of the situation and carve their own zones of influence.

DCInsider

Mr Stereo1 · Jul 14, 2009

Umbral said:
So...if something kicks Russia down a bit so they don't expand east as fast, we end up with a much stronger Chinese presence in Siberia, and a smaller, more modernized Russia?

I reckon so.

tallwingedgoat · Jul 14, 2009

DCInsider said:
Blueczar,
The map you posted is essentially the blueprint for the following:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123836150260267093.html

In "Uhappy China", the underlying theme now is that the concept of "liebensraum" needs to be eventually rehabilitated because China's natural grwoth and desire for global leadership requires resources- and land- all of which are within Beijing's grasp, but is inder comtrol fo Russia. There are lots of comments on this - as far early as 1954, USSR was concerned that China was still publishing books that showed large parts of Siberia and Far East under Chinese control.

But a China as massive as having all of Siberia under its control would be only as strong as its government. If there would be internal rebellions like the Taiping Rebellion in mid-19th century, other great powers would seek to take advantage of the situation and carve their own zones of influence.

DCInsider

China has never had any claims on Siberia. It did lose the territory of Outer Manchuria in 1858 which amounts to a slice of the Russian Far East, not in Siberia.

kasumigenx · Jun 4, 2010

If the Manchus don't invade china or try they might expand north..which needs a stronger Ming Empire...