Challenge: Politically united Asia

[Thande]

This never seemed plausible to me even at the time, but especially in the 1960s (Gerry Anderson, the Eagle, etc.) there seemed to be a fad for suggesting that in the future, Asia would be politically united. I suspect that this excluded Asian Russia (or then, the USSR) and perhaps the Middle East, but it certainly included both China and India at least.

So, with a POD after say 1950 (and this could be FH as well) how could we get some sort of united Asian federation with a single President? (This was mainly inspired by an episode of Captain Scarlet, set I believe in the 2060s, in which the Mysterons attempted to assassinate the 'President of Asia'...)

 

[Berra]

Not to mention 1984 and Sixth Collumn. I think they feature a large revolution and a big war. A revolutinary wave sounds more likely.

 

[Faeelin]

I'd say it has to be before the Sino-Japanese War.

Althoug Japanese rhetoric did strike a cord in China, the rape of Nanking et al. ruined it.

 

[strangeland]

I'd say it has to be before the Sino-Japanese War.

Althoug Japanese rhetoric did strike a cord in China, the rape of Nanking et al. ruined it.

There's way too much bad blood between China and Japan now; you're totally correct.

The POD has to be before World War I, at the end of which Japan took over German rights and concessions in China.

 

[Douglas]

Well, the fact that its united doesn't have to mean everything is peachy for everyone within this Greater Asia...Co-Prosperity Sphere?

I can see three actors big enough to achieve Asian unification: China, India, and Japan. Out of these, the two most likely in the 20th century IMHO would be China and Japan.

For Japan, I have two thoughts. One is the OTL spread of Japanese militarism. If Japan doesn't have to go to war with the United States over the Dutch East Indies (insert something about American fascists, communists, Huey Long, Charles Lindbergh, etc here), then Japan can annex SE Asia (or install puppet governments), and invade and conquer India. They have to finish off China, and that and trying to keep all of Asia down will be the hard part...

Another possibility for Japan is to use the example of the Manchus, although this probably needs to be pre-1900. If a Japanese invasion of China results in a Manchu-analogue Japanese dynasty being installed in China, you could have a sort of unification. Say the Meijis Era gets moved forward fifty years.

Of course, we could always get a post-1948 China to pull this off as well. You show me a way to get the USSR to get devastated by American instant sunrise, and America to take enough hits to be staggering around economically and politically, I'll show you Chinese nuclear blackmail of anyone on the Asian continent, and possibly even Japan, although that's a bit harder.

EDIT: Dang, 1950 POD? Ok...we'll go with Amerigo's Cuban Missile War Timeline, except American cities get hit a bit harder. The US collapses for a couple of decades, and China develops nuclear weapons.

China-India skirmish in Himalayas --> Chinese victory and advance over the Himalays --> stalled offensive --> Delhi, Calcutta, Bombay glassed --> Pakistani invasion --> Indian People's Republic

China-Taiwan --> Taiwan asks aid from America, but is rebuffed --> Taiwan develops nukes --> China invades Quemoy --> Taiwan nukes Shanghai --> China nukes...well, all of Taiwan, and invades at leisure.

China-Vietnam border war --> Vietnam gets pwned because China doesn't have to pull any punches.

Etc.

 

[Roberto]

How about... The Chinese Civil War stretches a few more years, and the Nationalists finally defeat the Communists totally. A Communist revolt in American-occupied Japan scares the USA, and many American soldiers are killed and tortured, what with the bad blood with America going around in Japan.

The Americans get sneaky and turn the occupation over to China. After a second big revolt, China announces outright annexation.

In this TL's version of the Korean War, South Korea annexes North Korea with heavy Chinese assistance, and forms the Korean Republic. China puts massive effort to help the Koreans build infrastructure to create a unified state. After a few years, the Koreans rely on Chinese help so much that they agree to becoming part of a EU-type organization founded by China.

Thailand, Burma, Nepal, Bhutan, Tibet, India, and the Indochinese states (including a united Vietnam) all join the organization, seeing China as a bulwark against Soviet Incursion.

By the Seventies, The Phillipines, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and East Timor have all joined this organization after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and set up an Afghan SSR. The organization federalizes for the next half-decade, and expands to include a failing Persia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, Syria, Lebenon, Jordan, and Israel.

By the late Eighties, the Asian Union has almost fully federalized, and a President of Asia is elected. Although China is seen as the leader of the organization, the leader of China decides that if the President of Asia is not Chinese, then people will not be so quick to see the Asian Union as a Chinese machination.

The Soviet Union collapses on time, and the varies Central Asian and Caucasian states join the AU. Mongolia, free from Soviet influence, also joins.

Turkey later joins as well. By the twenty-first century the only country in Asia not to join the AU is Russia. Russia is decaying socially and economically, and in 2005, it's split into Eastern and Western Russia, which join the AU and TL's analog of the EU, respectively.

Yeah, I know, not plausible at all, but it works.

 

[CalBear]

Most of the Alternate or Future History stories with a united Asia don't seem to revolve around a democracy. Whether it is subtle, or not so subtle, racism or just because the "Asians" were the opponents of the West, they always seem to have a dictator, emperor, or President-for-Life in control.

In a way, almost the only way I can see a united Asia, under one ruler, IS with a strongman (woman?) in control. The differences between the Continent's populations are so great that seeing them as one big happy democracy is more than a bit tough. Europe hasn't managed it, despite much less glaring differences, nor has either North or South America (and North America, at least before WW II, was a fairly stable place with no current issues and a considerable amount of cultural cohesion, especially between the U.S. and Canada). It should, perhaps, be more of a surprise that Australia didn't break into seperate countries, than that other continents haven't become one nation, given human history.

Can you imagine a state where Japanese politicians are elected by Chinese voters, or one where Chinese candidates are supported by Vietnamese delgates? How about one where Filippno Catholics elect devout Hindu, Sikh, or Muslim senators (or vice versa)?

The "United Asia" vision, IMO, results from a failure of European & American observers to see beyond the extremely superficial and look at the motivations of people.

Now, how to make it happen, post 1950, without a war of conquest? How about a plauge or an asteroid strike? A new, all-encompassing religion? It would have to be a disaster of massive proportion or mass religious fevor to overcome the cultural inertia.

 

[strangeland]

Most of the Alternate or Future History stories with a united Asia don't seem to revolve around a democracy. Whether it is subtle, or not so subtle, racism or just because the "Asians" were the opponents of the West, they always seem to have a dictator, emperor, or President-for-Life in control.

unfortunately, Confucianism, with it's "Shut up and obey" mentality isn't conducive to the development of any type of democratic political culture.

 

[Dan1988]

unfortunately, Confucianism, with it's "Shut up and obey" mentality isn't conducive to the development of any type of democratic political culture.

That's Legalism, not Confucianism.

 

[Hendryk]

unfortunately, Confucianism, with it's "Shut up and obey" mentality isn't conducive to the development of any type of democratic political culture.

Tell that to the Taiwanese, who democratically elected their new president in fair multiparty elections just last week.

 

[Flocculencio]

I can see three actors big enough to achieve Asian unification: China, India, and Japan. Out of these, the two most likely in the 20th century IMHO would be China and Japan.

Japan? I'm sorry but Japan was never, ever powerful enough to do something like that. In OTL they tried and got bogged down in China. Japan had already lost it's bid for power- declaring war on the Western powers merely speeded up it's downfall.

Everyone seems to get carried away by all the rhetoric about Japan- it's just not true. Japan (like Korea) was, for most of it's history an insignificant backwater of China and if China keeps on rising, will probably drop back to that status.

 

[Flocculencio]

unfortunately, Confucianism, with it's "Shut up and obey" mentality isn't conducive to the development of any type of democratic political culture.

There isn't any single form of Confucianism- there are many many different permutations of it. At one end it blends into Legalism, at the other end you get societies like Taiwan which are raucously democratic. The main difference between Confucian societies and the West is that even in the democratic societies there's less emphasis on the individual but more on the group (not necessarily the state).

 

[Douglas]

Japan? I'm sorry but Japan was never, ever powerful enough to do something like that. In OTL they tried and got bogged down in China. Japan had already lost it's bid for power- declaring war on the Western powers merely speeded up it's downfall.

Everyone seems to get carried away by all the rhetoric about Japan- it's just not true. Japan (like Korea) was, for most of it's history an insignificant backwater of China and if China keeps on rising, will probably drop back to that status.

You always do say this, and I specifically included India because I knew you would say this. However, Japan controlled a good portion of Mainland China in 1941, and somewhere out there I've seen a rather plausible essay detailing how they could've grabbed India.

As far as the 20th century is concerned, they certainly have a better shot than India...and if you had read my post, you would see that I realize it would very hard, if not impossible to hold down all of that territory for any considerable length of time.

 

[Flocculencio]

You always do say this, and I specifically included India because I knew you would say this. However, Japan controlled a good portion of Mainland China in 1941, and somewhere out there I've seen a rather plausible essay detailing how they could've grabbed India.

As far as the 20th century is concerned, they certainly have a better shot than India...and if you had read my post, you would see that I realize it would very hard, if not impossible to hold down all of that territory for any considerable length of time.

In all fairness, I don't think India if it develops along the lines of OTL has any shot at all- it's unity as a single nation was only achieved after a century of British rule that developed an Anglicised upper class with Western notions of Nationalism.

Off the top of my head the only ways India could unify before the 20th C are through (i) an Alexandrian conquest resulting in a hellenised Indian Empire (as per my Heraklid TL) or (ii) the lasting unification of a Buddhist India, discarding the caste system as almost happened under Ashoka in OTL. Almost anythign else is to late to give us a united India capable of becoming a Great Power by the 20th C.

You acknowledge that Japan wouldn't have been able to hold that territory for any great length of time- I think that's an overestimation. In OTL Japan held the Chinese coast and was hopelessly bogged down in the interior. In OTL the Japanese invasion was turned back at the borders of Assam- India's potential never really needed to be mobilised on a total war scale. Gandhi had tentatively given his blessing to the war against the Axis and if Britain had actually unleashed the full power of India, I think the results would have been terrifying.

The only reason they got as far as they did was down to Gen. Percival's lack of balls at Singapore. If he had held for a week more, Yamashita's army would have been out of supplies and the Japanese advance would have been crushed in Malaya.

India was never fully mobilised and both Chinese factions were effectively fighting each other at the same time they were fighting Japan.
Japan was a country overmatched and outnumbered. It's a massive testament to the Imperial Army's fighting spirit that they drove to the borders of India. Nothing more was possible or would ever have been- they were using all the resources at their disposal...neither China, nor India was doing the same.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Here's a solution:

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!

Just had to say that.

 

[Flocculencio]

Here's a solution:

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!

Just had to say that.

Actually that's a pretty good solution

 

[MerryPrankster]

Actually that's a pretty good solution

Khan Noonan Singh or an actual Mongol Khan?

 

[Flocculencio]

Khan Noonan Singh or an actual Mongol Khan?

Given the POD restrictions it'd have to be the former but if we assume pre-1900 PODs an actual Mongol Khan might plausibly manage it.

Khan Noonien Singh gets bonus points for being Sikh, though, since Sikhs generally kick ass.

 

[historiD15C]

POD issue

It is the 1950 POD that is the monkey wrench. Japan is defeated,
Korea is divided, the KMT is ran out, and their is divisiveness between
southeast asian ethnicities. You have to have two strong powers gobbling
up territory towards each other then come to a stalemate, or truce so they
can unify at a later date. As far as democracy, U.S. in OTL had massive
expansion and carried democracy across the continent.

 

[Hendryk]

Given the POD restrictions it'd have to be the former but if we assume pre-1900 PODs an actual Mongol Khan might plausibly manage it.

How could one arrange for the Mongols to turn south after defeating Kwarizm instead of going due west? The problem, as I see it, is that when the Mughals went for India they were thoroughly Islamicized, and had picked up the religious hang-ups of converts to Abrahamic creeds; but their Mongol predecessors were pragmatic to a fault when it came to religion, and only cared for political submission. Could one have a gradual Mongol conquest of the Indian subcontinent mirrorring that of China to the east? Then, when the Mongol empire breaks up, India would remain under a single ruler (who would in all likelihood convert to Hinduism). An added bonus would be that, since conquest of the subcontinent would take decades, in the meantime the southern kingdoms could expand seaward in an attempt to boost revenue so as to fund their defence.