The PoD is that Dowager Cixi kicks the bucket earlier, and the Guangxu emperor clings to power all the way until 1914. The state of the Qing is up to you, but it is completely necessary for the empire exists and join the central powers with the promise to gain Hong Kong and the restoration of the tributary kingdom in Vietnam.
If Qing China Joins the central powers, would the great war end sooner or later than otl?
I don't think the Qing could materially contribute to a CP victory. The most likely result is that the Qing forces mobilise and overrun the legations, whilst the European powers are distracted in Europe, but eventually a combination of European Expeditionary forces and the IJA will land and route the poorly equipped and lead Chinese armies. The shaky Qing dynasty wouldn't be able to withstand these shock and would disintigrate.
You would probably end up with the Japanese heavily involved in occupying large swathes of Chinese territory much earlier. Some Entente figures would support a Chinese Republic, bu the Japanese who are now much more closely bound the France and Britain, and who will have done much of the dying in the Chinese campaign will make sure that their areas of interest and control are maintained. This probably butterflies the second Sino-Japanese war as Japan will already control large amounts of coastal territory as direct vassals, or even outright possessions and will play the interior warlords off against each other.
China might even end up broken permanently as a result of this.
You would probably end up with the Japanese heavily involved in occupying large swathes of Chinese territory much earlier. Some Entente figures would support a Chinese Republic, bu the Japanese who are now much more closely bound the France and Britain, and who will have done much of the dying in the Chinese campaign will make sure that their areas of interest and control are maintained. This probably butterflies the second Sino-Japanese war as Japan will already control large amounts of coastal territory as direct vassals, or even outright possessions and will play the interior warlords off against each other.
China might even end up broken permanently as a result of this.
The problem with that scenario is how are the CPs possibly going to make good on their promise to deliver Hong Kong to China when the Royal Navy is in the way for support by sea and the Russian Empire for support by land? The Silk Road route isn't going to work either because neither British India nor the Russian Empire will grant transit rights. Can the Ottomans really invade India from one end and China from the other in order to create a corridor?
The Anglo-Japanese Alliance would be in effect as well, and then China runs the risk of Britain allowing the Japanese to stake more claims in China than just Tsingtao and the Kwantung Leased territory, should they broker a deal for assistance in the defence of Hong Kong. Then, China finds herself surrounded by enemies on all sides, by both land and sea.
BlondieBC
Banned
The Qing can't win the war in Europe, so the question gets more into butterflies. i.e. Will the Entente move OTL forces from Europe to Asia? If so, how many?
It all depends on the relative strength of China. If the Internal Self Strengthening Movement has improved the quality of China's armed forces relatively close to Ottoman levels then the Entente has serious problems. Japan was able to take advantage of a weak disorganised China. A reasonably strong, fairly well armed and relatively stable and unified China? Japan wouldn't want to get involved and would be tempted to join China for a share in the gains from the Russian Far East and pushing the French out of Indochina. Back in 1914 the Japanese leadership is rational and pragmatic and not dominated intellectually by a rather crazed and distorted version of Bushido.
If the Ottoman Empire also entered the War Russia is in dire trouble with a three front war. Even if the Chinese performance is very mediocre, Russia is only just doing better than the Ottomans and the Austro-Hungarians and is slowly losing to the Germans. Needing to keep 300-350,000 troops actively engaged in the Far East would overstretch Russia's already pressed resources. And if China promises the French Indochina independence and alliance and sends arms and an army "of liberation"? France has to deploy significant additional resources to hold Indochina and either wouldn't have been able to commit troops to the Salonika front or the Near East. And Britain wouldn't have been able to raise the Chinese Labour Corps and wouldn't have been able to deploy as much of its manpower to the Western Front as OTL. And France would have had the same problem with Indonesia.
And that's only on the basis of China's Army being barely competent--Yuan Shikai or Marshal Zhang level. If they have managed to train up some reasonably good generals to the level of the best Taipeng leaders or Chiang Kai-shek's very best (never mind the Red Army in 1949 or 1950) and with German technical advice they will do serious damage on those fronts. And Britain won't be able to hold Weihawei or the Portuguese Macao.
If Japan entered the war on the Entente side or stayed a friendly neutral Britain might just manage to hang on to Hong-Kong but at a resource cost elsewhere. Those Anzacs wouldn't be available to send to Gallipoli - needed for the Cantonese and Annamese fronts. If Japan declared war on Russia (not Britain or even France, just Russia) Britain is in deep difficulty. Declare war on Japan and lose Hong-Kong or ignore the fact that one of your allies is at war with one of your allies?
There's reasons besides war weariness for the Great Powers (other than Japan and look how well that turned out) not intervening to restore order in China during the warlord era. They realised that while they might still have the military edge on China they no longer had the kind of overwhelming military superiority they had during the Boxer Rebellion. The machine gun and rifle being great levellers.
If the Ottoman Empire also entered the War Russia is in dire trouble with a three front war. Even if the Chinese performance is very mediocre, Russia is only just doing better than the Ottomans and the Austro-Hungarians and is slowly losing to the Germans. Needing to keep 300-350,000 troops actively engaged in the Far East would overstretch Russia's already pressed resources. And if China promises the French Indochina independence and alliance and sends arms and an army "of liberation"? France has to deploy significant additional resources to hold Indochina and either wouldn't have been able to commit troops to the Salonika front or the Near East. And Britain wouldn't have been able to raise the Chinese Labour Corps and wouldn't have been able to deploy as much of its manpower to the Western Front as OTL. And France would have had the same problem with Indonesia.
And that's only on the basis of China's Army being barely competent--Yuan Shikai or Marshal Zhang level. If they have managed to train up some reasonably good generals to the level of the best Taipeng leaders or Chiang Kai-shek's very best (never mind the Red Army in 1949 or 1950) and with German technical advice they will do serious damage on those fronts. And Britain won't be able to hold Weihawei or the Portuguese Macao.
If Japan entered the war on the Entente side or stayed a friendly neutral Britain might just manage to hang on to Hong-Kong but at a resource cost elsewhere. Those Anzacs wouldn't be available to send to Gallipoli - needed for the Cantonese and Annamese fronts. If Japan declared war on Russia (not Britain or even France, just Russia) Britain is in deep difficulty. Declare war on Japan and lose Hong-Kong or ignore the fact that one of your allies is at war with one of your allies?
There's reasons besides war weariness for the Great Powers (other than Japan and look how well that turned out) not intervening to restore order in China during the warlord era. They realised that while they might still have the military edge on China they no longer had the kind of overwhelming military superiority they had during the Boxer Rebellion. The machine gun and rifle being great levellers.
Driftless
Donor
Conceivably, one of the knock-ons is that the Dardanelles Campaign gets completely put off? Too many irons in too many fires?
FillyofDelphi
Banned
I don't know how many troops the UK would be willing to pull out of the Raj period, if only because of the internal political ramifications in India. The Chinese may not pose an actual military threat, but history shows us that the mere specter can cause people to demand protections.
To say nothing of the economic impacts of not being able to pull in labor (both civilian and in things like railway battalions) from China.
At this point in time Japan is still thinking about alliance with China as much as subjugation. After twenty years of weak and divided Chinese government and internal chaos the temptation to subjugate becomes overwhelming. However if China appears relatively unified with a coherent and reasonably strong government and a modernising military, alliance looks more attractive. The alliance with Britain is to counterbalance the Russians expansion into the Far East. If China looks like pushing the Russians back would Japan want to stop them? Or would they toy with the notion of lending a hand and grabbing a chunk of Siberia? Korean unrest at Japanese control of their country would be significantly reduced by Japan managing to double Korea in size. Japan wants to ensure that China is not a threat. If China is internally riven and militarily weak they go to their OTL option. If China is united and strengthening, then the option of discussing mutual interests becomes more appealing.
FillyofDelphi
Banned
Japan can't afford to alienate itself from British capital. China is going to be a debt sink in any realistic circumstance, and the Japanese economy is captive for further development, funding it's Imperial and military project, ect.to the British financial sector. That might allow them to ply a simply not actively helpful route, but not one which aids an active belligerent against GB
Even OTL with the Empress Dowager's highly conservative regime, the Boxer uprising and the period of confusion and drift after the Empress Dowager's death, China was slightly more militarily capable than when the Japanese defeated them in the 1890s by 1914. With over a decade of moderate reform and military reform the least contentious element of that reform (even conservatives in China recognised their army needed modernisation after the Sino-Japanese War) China should have a reasonably respectable Army at least on paper.
With China awakening Britain is unlikely to sign up to an Anglo-Russian Convention in 1907 when she can play China and Russia off against one another and where allying with Russia runs a serious risk of losing her treaty ports in any Sino-Russian war.
Secondly Germany having China as an ally should alter German strategic thinking from knocking out France first and then concentrate on Russia. In TTL Germany has to hit the Russians first before they can knock their Quing ally out of the war and ensure Russia has a two front war (three of they can bring the Ottoman Empire in). So probably no violation of Belgium's neutrality TTL and a defensive war with France. Britain has no excuse for joining the Entente and remains neutral for the time being.
With China awakening Britain is unlikely to sign up to an Anglo-Russian Convention in 1907 when she can play China and Russia off against one another and where allying with Russia runs a serious risk of losing her treaty ports in any Sino-Russian war.
Secondly Germany having China as an ally should alter German strategic thinking from knocking out France first and then concentrate on Russia. In TTL Germany has to hit the Russians first before they can knock their Quing ally out of the war and ensure Russia has a two front war (three of they can bring the Ottoman Empire in). So probably no violation of Belgium's neutrality TTL and a defensive war with France. Britain has no excuse for joining the Entente and remains neutral for the time being.
Not that related, but I did a timeline with a close IRL friend of mine where China joined the Central Powers. The colonial powers and Japan browbeat China after the Germans cry uncle, China sues for peace early 1919. They are forced to sign a treaty which expands many foreign concessions in China, and turns Shanghai and its vicinity over to a League of Nations administration. Dissatisfied students march in protest, government orders troops to fire upon them, troops ignore them and joins the revolt. A nationalist despotic government takes over, and a large number of liberal intellectuals as well as nearby residents, flee to Shanghai, where the LON administration, under the influence of the prewar Shanghai Municipal Council, doesn't exactly want them.
(Ok, i know that i'm actually don't should reply to this, but the temptation is too big for me)
I can see the following moves to China in this war:
- Immediate offensive towards Vladivostok and Khabarovsk (With some good generals in command this can be a great hit at the russians)
- Siege of Hong Kong, recalling that even if we consider that economically, China is not in its full potential, it still manages to produce MANY SHIPS to have a navy capable of acting considerably better than other CP's navies due to the circumstances (A.k.a don't have the necessity to outplay the Royal Navy home fleet, just outplay the Australian and Russian navies. Improve the scenario a bit and you can see a chinese navy bigger than the KM)
- Indochina War 0.5, unfortunately, the australians will feel in blood why you should never give China a chance to support the vietnamese.
- Baikal and Central Asian campaigns, the russians will have to sacrifice the victory at some front to have a chance of beat the chinese in the others. The 3-front war is just 'cause the chinese is just one opponent, in reality is a 5-front war. With the chinese having luck to have an great officer pool to the war, the russians would be just beheaded.
- Naval War in the East, this would be great, Spee will have a LOT of friendly ports to play in the Pacific. And if the chinese naval tradition plays in and the Qing have competent naval officers, i can see the british regretting waking the dragon because of some boxes of opium
- This is almost impossible but....WAR ON THE HIMALAYAS? Jeez, this war is turning really global
I can see the following moves to China in this war:
- Immediate offensive towards Vladivostok and Khabarovsk (With some good generals in command this can be a great hit at the russians)
- Siege of Hong Kong, recalling that even if we consider that economically, China is not in its full potential, it still manages to produce MANY SHIPS to have a navy capable of acting considerably better than other CP's navies due to the circumstances (A.k.a don't have the necessity to outplay the Royal Navy home fleet, just outplay the Australian and Russian navies. Improve the scenario a bit and you can see a chinese navy bigger than the KM)
- Indochina War 0.5, unfortunately, the australians will feel in blood why you should never give China a chance to support the vietnamese.
- Baikal and Central Asian campaigns, the russians will have to sacrifice the victory at some front to have a chance of beat the chinese in the others. The 3-front war is just 'cause the chinese is just one opponent, in reality is a 5-front war. With the chinese having luck to have an great officer pool to the war, the russians would be just beheaded.
- Naval War in the East, this would be great, Spee will have a LOT of friendly ports to play in the Pacific. And if the chinese naval tradition plays in and the Qing have competent naval officers, i can see the british regretting waking the dragon because of some boxes of opium
- This is almost impossible but....WAR ON THE HIMALAYAS? Jeez, this war is turning really global