China is the world's most populated country, and any country that tries to conquer it will end up assimilated instead(eg. the Mongols and the Manchus). However, by the late 19th century, the Qing Empire in China was on its last legs, and there was a fear that it may possibly have been partitioned and colonized by various imperial powers, namely the British Empire, Russia, and Japan. Because of this, the United States issued the "Open Door" notes, so that China would not fall to any nation that could cut off American trade. However, if the United States is too weak to issue and/or enforce the notes, such as after losing the ACW, would carving up and colonizing China be possible? Of course, with a POD decades earlier, China's decline isn't guaranteed, and it may possibly have been saved, but if China does fall to where it did IOTL, could Britain, Russia and Japan(and possibly France and Germany as well) have Chinese colonies(Hong Kong and Macau don't count)?
Confederate Victory in ACW-Is a "Scramble for China" Possible?
- Thread starter Superman
- Start date
In such a situation the Confederate Victory in this term is what i would assume to be through Military terms either on its own or through foreign intervention, either way leads to the strong possibility of a UK French and Confederate Military Alliance to either reaffirm foreign intervention or to capitalize on Foreign territory annexations essentially making the Caribbean a Confederate UK lake, and closing off access to the Atlantic for further territory.
While keeping the US in checks since it would be essentially boxed in by the CSA to the South and Canada to the North.
Which would lead to a much more powerful US Military to counter act such a possibility but would in my opinion leave the US more concerned its tensions, disputes Political, Military and Economic aspirations in North America then other parts of the world.
But on the other hand such a world map line up would insure that only the Pacific would be available for further Imperialistic ambitions and further territory annexations and as a bonus to vent the high tensions on the home front.
So either way it is highly likely that a scramble for china would be more than possible along side a actively participating US.
While keeping the US in checks since it would be essentially boxed in by the CSA to the South and Canada to the North.
Which would lead to a much more powerful US Military to counter act such a possibility but would in my opinion leave the US more concerned its tensions, disputes Political, Military and Economic aspirations in North America then other parts of the world.
But on the other hand such a world map line up would insure that only the Pacific would be available for further Imperialistic ambitions and further territory annexations and as a bonus to vent the high tensions on the home front.
So either way it is highly likely that a scramble for china would be more than possible along side a actively participating US.
Yeah, I was thinking that a surviving CSA would lead to a much, much stronger US Army but a weaker US Navy.
Actually probably both a stronger navy and army. It isn't like the US couldn't afford it. It had a tiny military budget most of the time OTL.
Especially because any realistic CSA victory will pretty much require British aid. The USA, having likely been decisively defeated on the Sea by Britain, will want to ensure that never happens again.
Honestly all I see a CSA victory timeline doing is giving the US it's Pearl Harbor Moment around a century earlier than OTL.
Honestly all I see a CSA victory timeline doing is giving the US it's Pearl Harbor Moment around a century earlier than OTL.
Well in a sense China wasn't really saved by the US - the more important factor in its non-partition was the mutual suspicion of the Great Powers and ability of the Qing court to play one off against the other.
One could argue that the 'Scramble of China' was well underway by the late 1890s or even the 1880s, with the development of 'New Imperialism' and the failure/perceived failure of the Self-Strengthening Reforms. Certainly by 1885, France was obtaining railway concessions in the Chinese southwest and in 1897 Germany occupied Jiaozhou (Qingdao). 1898 saw more concessions with Kwang-Chow-Wan (Zhanjiang) to France, the Hong Kong New Territories and Weihai to Britain, and Lushunkou (Dalian) to Russia. Britain and Russia were already exchanging sphere-of-influence guarantees in 1899, the same year that the Open Door policy was issued.
And in any case, it's not exactly right to read the Open Door policy as a 100% 'anti-colonial' measure. America demanded equal opportunity for ordinary trade, not for investment. Shandong still had to rely on German capital, Yunnan on French capital, the Yangtze on British capital. And when the Russo-Japanese war ended in 1905 Roosevelt was more than happy to transfer Russia's rights in Manchuria to the Japanese - hardly anti-colonial behaviour.
So basically what I'm trying to say is that if the Europeans really made an effort for colonies in China, they could have gotten them before 1899; and in any case, this wasn't something that really concerned America as long as the Europeans colonized China with some regard for US interests.
The more likely reason for why Europeans didn't colonize China is because they were mutually suspicious of each other's intentions, and the Qing court used this to its advantage as best as it can. Yes, Germany obtained extensive rights in Shandong in 1898 - but this was counterbalanced by the Chinese 'lease' of Weihai to Britain, which threatened both Russian and German spheres of influence. Similarly, British influence in Guangdong was counterbalanced by French concessions which specifically forbade Qing China from making any non-French concessions in lands bordering Indochina. The most aggressive movements by Japan and Russia were moderated through mutual suspicion and, in the case of Russia's attempted annexation of Harbin in 1908, the US' suspicion of both powers.
So in a sense, Western powers restrained each other in China out of a desire to not be the 'first-mover' that could end up with one power dominating all of China, which would be tremendously detrimental to everybody's interests. Of course, this situation couldn't last forever, and certainly by the late 1900s we see concerted movements by European powers (the Four-Power Hankou Railway Concessions) that could have eventually led to a partition of China; but WWI intervened to put an end to that.
One could argue that the 'Scramble of China' was well underway by the late 1890s or even the 1880s, with the development of 'New Imperialism' and the failure/perceived failure of the Self-Strengthening Reforms. Certainly by 1885, France was obtaining railway concessions in the Chinese southwest and in 1897 Germany occupied Jiaozhou (Qingdao). 1898 saw more concessions with Kwang-Chow-Wan (Zhanjiang) to France, the Hong Kong New Territories and Weihai to Britain, and Lushunkou (Dalian) to Russia. Britain and Russia were already exchanging sphere-of-influence guarantees in 1899, the same year that the Open Door policy was issued.
And in any case, it's not exactly right to read the Open Door policy as a 100% 'anti-colonial' measure. America demanded equal opportunity for ordinary trade, not for investment. Shandong still had to rely on German capital, Yunnan on French capital, the Yangtze on British capital. And when the Russo-Japanese war ended in 1905 Roosevelt was more than happy to transfer Russia's rights in Manchuria to the Japanese - hardly anti-colonial behaviour.
So basically what I'm trying to say is that if the Europeans really made an effort for colonies in China, they could have gotten them before 1899; and in any case, this wasn't something that really concerned America as long as the Europeans colonized China with some regard for US interests.
The more likely reason for why Europeans didn't colonize China is because they were mutually suspicious of each other's intentions, and the Qing court used this to its advantage as best as it can. Yes, Germany obtained extensive rights in Shandong in 1898 - but this was counterbalanced by the Chinese 'lease' of Weihai to Britain, which threatened both Russian and German spheres of influence. Similarly, British influence in Guangdong was counterbalanced by French concessions which specifically forbade Qing China from making any non-French concessions in lands bordering Indochina. The most aggressive movements by Japan and Russia were moderated through mutual suspicion and, in the case of Russia's attempted annexation of Harbin in 1908, the US' suspicion of both powers.
So in a sense, Western powers restrained each other in China out of a desire to not be the 'first-mover' that could end up with one power dominating all of China, which would be tremendously detrimental to everybody's interests. Of course, this situation couldn't last forever, and certainly by the late 1900s we see concerted movements by European powers (the Four-Power Hankou Railway Concessions) that could have eventually led to a partition of China; but WWI intervened to put an end to that.
Last edited:
Actually more likely IMO, France was less abolitionist than Great Britain.
I wonder if British involvement in the ACW would lead to a withdrawal of support for the Ever Victorious Army and thus prevent the final downfall of the Taiping. If the Taiping could stabilise, instead of constantly looking to expand, then it might be a long-term viable state, maybe requiring Hong Xiquan to meet with an unfortunate accident down the line
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
I don't think a 'scramble for China' in the sense of 'divide it up into colonies' is possible personally. China is just too big and too many natives to be perpetually kept down. And unlike India most of the core of China has had a sense of being Chinese for centuries so a divide and conquer strategy is pretty unlikely. It's also too big a market to just shut down through conquest.
Can the Empires of the world nibble off larger edges? Why yes, I could see Russia annexing Manchuria and Xingiang fairly easily. France might add some of Southern China to it's Asian empire and Britain might nibble away more of the coast. I can't see them dividing it up though.
Can the Empires of the world nibble off larger edges? Why yes, I could see Russia annexing Manchuria and Xingiang fairly easily. France might add some of Southern China to it's Asian empire and Britain might nibble away more of the coast. I can't see them dividing it up though.