Wrong. The Qing, in their arrogance, decided the rest of the world had nothing to offer. Britain tried to establish trade relations in the 18th Century, and they would only consent if King George III himself came to Beijing and prostrated himself before the emperor. The problem with considering yourself the center of the world is that you surround yourself with people who want to see you taken down a peg.
You make it seem that if only the Qing dynasty was more open to outside influences and trade, it would have advanced and became strong. You have to remember though that even in the year 1800, European power and influence wasn't that pronounced or noticeable in the Sinosphere. There was no reason for the Qing court to change its policies, which had worked so well to pacify China's enormous population. Why change something, if it isn't broken? Of course, a decade or two after that, it was broken beyond repair and the dynasty's decline and demise became inevitable with European intervension.
But that's besides the point. What's more important is what evidence do you have that an outward looking, mercantile country was able to successfully modernize and withstand European encroachment? At the time of its conquest, Malacca was one of the richest and most powerful state in Southeast Asia and its capital was one of the biggest centre of Maritime trade in the world. Still, the Sultanate did not survive its encounter with the Portuguese.
What about the most the only Asian country that emerged from the 19th century as a modern power - Japan? Prior to Matthew Perry's arrival in the with his "Black Ships", sakoku isolated Japan even more than the neighbouring Hermit Kingdom of Korea. Yet, with the political unity and will it displayed after the Boshin War, it was able to modernize and contend with the Europeans.
Another fact when looking at late-Qing China is the declining power of the dynasty. Qing dynasty of the First Opium War is far-removed from even the Qing dynasty of 1800. The Qing administration arguably faced more internal problems in the war than against the British. Even then it was often ignored that the war wasn't as lopsided as often protrayed. The British were in fact repelled several times at Canton and Amoy and it wasn't until after their successes in the Yangtse that the British were able to capture the two ports.
Even were the Chinese to "modernize" in the mid-18th century in order to meet the OP's original timeline of 1800, the factories that allowed the mass-production of pricision parts essential for the mass-production of things like breech-loading rifles weren't available until the 19th century. If the Chinese still had a failing government, this "modernization" would do nothing to impede its exploitation by the Europeans. In fact, an uprising like the Taiping where the rebels are armed with early-modern weaponry could make it that much easier for the Europeans to balkanize and split China into spheres of influence.
The fact is, this subject is extremely nuanced and you can't really place China's failings in the one and a half century leading up to WWII on any specific factor. What can be said is that those countries close to the epicentre of industrial revolution capitalized on this development and became world powers. If China had been one of those countries, it likely would have turned out the same.
Last edited: