What if the first Opium War ended with the British Gaining posession of five Chinese provinces?

[TheCrucible]

In this case I'm talking about Jiangsu, Tianjin, Beijing, Hong Kong and Guangdong. For those that don't think this would have been possible watch this.

So including the above provinces the British get their demands, destroy China, have missionaries start to convert the population and sell opium.

What happens now?

 

[Dan]

Might be worth moving this to Pre-1900.

 

[TheCrucible]

Might be worth moving this to Pre-1900.

Yeah. My mistake. Can anyone do it?

 

[Dan]

@Dom Can you help please?

 

[A Piece of History]

After losing not just two port cities, but entire provinces to the British, I can foresee the Qing Dynasty finally losing the Mandate of Heaven and falling to a earlier Taiping Rebellion, which would lead to infighting and chaos, which would make China appear as open real estate to colonial powers aside from the British.

 

[Tyler96]

Beijing seems like a long shot. Surely the Qing wouldn’t give it up easily?

After losing not just two port cities, but entire provinces to the British, I can foresee the Qing Dynasty finally losing the Mandate of Heaven and falling to a earlier Taiping Rebellion, which would lead to infighting and chaos, which would make China appear as open real estate to colonial powers aside from the British.

Could a British presence in Guangdong from 1842 could conceivably have some effect on Hong Xiuquan’s life? If nothing else he’d potentially have more contacts with the West, and this might influence his ideology.

Though I guess even if the Taiping Rebellion is somehow averted the conditions in China and even weaker position of the Qing means a different rebellion would rise up to take it’s place (...and if the ATL rebellion is less... crazy than the Taiping it might do better) or one of the other OTL Rebellions increases in severity.

 

[A Piece of History]

Could a British presence in Guangdong from 1842 could conceivably have some effect on Hong Xiuquan’s life?

Hong had his 'visions' in 1837, so the seeds for his fundamentalism had already been planted, but it's likely that yes, a British occupation of Guangdong could influence his ideology so that it is less extreme. It's possible that he could just be a radical preacher in British-controlled Guangdong.

However, Christianity was still a potent influence among the Han Chinese, particularly those who found themselves impoverished. Someone was going to take advantage of that.

 

[TheCrucible]

So a scramble for China?

 

[Pelranius]

How are the British going to hold onto both China and India?

 

[AltoRegnant]

Japan had better get in on the meaty bits ASAP. Hell, if they're also allowed German China after the first world war, they might be less prone to their ultranationalism

 

[Baldrick]

A Chinese Berlin Conference is held
The British grab the aforementioned territories, the Germans Shandong, the French Yunnan, and the Russians Manchuria, Mongolia, Inner Mongolia, and Xinjiang.
Whether or not a rump China can survive in Hunan, Sichuan, etc is a fair question. If so, I imagine it to be a really horrid place to live, with no connection to the sea, nothing much to trade, and full of bitter revanchist anger at the foreigners.

Japan might annex Manchuria in 1905, assuming it's a Russian colony, or else set up a puppet empire there like in 1933 OTL. Afterwards, they might end up throwing their lot in with the Germans in WWI, in the hopes of grabbing the Anglo-French Chinese colonies.

The British and French are more stretched by having to control another huge chunk of land, but are richer than OTL and have more access to Chinese resources.

In 1945, Taiwan will probably be given to the UK, even though it was never a British colony. The USSR will presumably still join the Pacific War in summer 1945, and will also likely have tremendous influence or even outright control over Xinjiang, as well as Mongolia. Maybe Manchuria is annexed directly into the USSR, maybe not.

When decolonisation comes, I imagine that different Chinese states will be set up at first (viz, the "Republic of Guangdong", etc), but seeing as how all of these new states are mostly ethnic Han and share a common heritage, I'd be willing to bet that unification will occur, perhaps by force under a Bismarck/Chiang Kai-shek like figure. The 1960s/70s TTL will look like the OTL Warlord era.
Meanwhile, the Soviets will be trying to get different Chinese states to go communist, with varying degrees of success.

Overall, China will still be a third-world country in 2019, and will look much more like Africa than the modern PRC. However, no Great Leap Forward is always a plus...

 

[Pelranius]

Japan had better get in on the meaty bits ASAP. Hell, if they're also allowed German China after the first world war, they might be less prone to their ultranationalism

A British colony of this size would probably butterfly Japanese imperialism.

 

[Glory2Cabinda]

Impossible the Chinese were barely to give willing to give up the obscure rock that was Hong Kong at the time. they would never cede a entire province to the British.

 

[TheCrucible]

Impossible the Chinese were barely to give willing to give up the obscure rock that was Hong Kong at the time. they would never cede a entire province to the British.

Did you watch my video? The Chinese knew that if they lost Nanking they'd be no negotiations. Only surrender.

To be fair the Chinese in the opium wars were stupid and arrogant if you watch the video. Nevertheless if Britain got those provinces which now make up about a sixth of China today they'd be rolling in cash in a decade.

And that's outside of the Opium trade. If every other major European power and Japan get in a scramble for China will occur.

 

[Avrorrange]

How are the British going to hold onto both China and India?

Same way they also held onto Africa and elsewhere.They use the existing power structures in China by coopting the local gentry elite into government after a brief exhibition of shock and awe.The is basically how the Manchus,a group numbering no more than several hundred thousand,came to dominate a country of over one hundred million people.For the first few decades of conquest,the conquest itself will pay for the war/cost of occupation.

 

[ArchimedesCircle]

A Chinese Berlin Conference is held

Why would the British hold this conference?

The British grab the aforementioned territories, the Germans Shandong, the French Yunnan, and the Russians Manchuria, Mongolia, Inner Mongolia, and Xinjiang.

Germany won't exist for several more decades and Prussia is still seen as the weakest major power in Europe, with no history of or apparent desire for colonies. France lost almost all of its colonial empire a few decades back after Napoleon, and are only just starting to expand into North Africa. The Russians still haven't pacified central Asia and it's going to be a while before railroads can get their armies there in any meaningful timeframe.

Japan might annex Manchuria in 1905, assuming it's a Russian colony, or else set up a puppet empire there like in 1933 OTL. Afterwards, they might end up throwing their lot in with the Germans in WWI, in the hopes of grabbing the Anglo-French Chinese colonies.

Japan is still under Sakoku in the 1840s. Assuming this doesn't reinforce their beliefs that trade with the west is dangerous (which seems likely) and the restoration happens on schedule, there isn't going to be a China for them to prove their might against and thus earn a seat at the 'big boys table'. Also, 60 years of butterflies are going to make the Russo-Japanese war and world war two very unlikely.

In 1945, Taiwan will probably be given to the UK, even though it was never a British colony. The USSR will presumably still join the Pacific War in summer 1945, and will also likely have tremendous influence or even outright control over Xinjiang, as well as Mongolia. Maybe Manchuria is annexed directly into the USSR, maybe not.

Again, butterflies. WWII isn't going to happen in any sort of recognizable form.

TLDR: China isn't Africa, the 1840s aren't the 1890s and a PoD in the first half of the nineteenth century will drastically change the twentieth.

 

[BellaGerant]

Same way they also held onto Africa and elsewhere.They use the existing power structures in China by coopting the local gentry elite into government after a brief exhibition of shock and awe.The is basically how the Manchus,a group numbering no more than several hundred thousand,came to dominate a country of over one hundred million people.For the first few decades of conquest,the conquest itself will pay for the war/cost of occupation.

I'd argue it would not be a 1-1 comparison between the Manchu conquest and a hypothetical British conquest, just from the nature of the two empires and the state of China in both 1640 and 1840.
On one hand, the Manchu were able to coopt the existing power structures after decades of enticing disgruntled Ming generals with imperial marriage and promises of better treatment than by the Ming, who generally favoured the scholar-gentry and bureaucracy over the military, recruiting officials from the Han Chinese under their rule, and adopting Chinese legal systems, all of which smoothed over the transition from the Ming to Qing. Plus, with the general chaos and banditry much of China had descended into, much of the populace was willing to play along, if only to regain some semblance of public order and safety.

In contrast with a British conquest, where the British have little to no understanding of Chinese legal systems and few individuals willing or able to work (language barriers) with them to begin with while the Qing are far from the disorder that marked the end of the Ming or Qing dynasties. Whereas Africa and India were long divided and not incredibly centralised, Qing China was in its 2nd century and the Qing needed more than 40 years to completely subdue an empire that had been declining for decades beforehand.

It's also worth noting that, despite the complete disaster of the Taiping Civil War, 1. the Qing were able to limp on for another 50 years and 2. none of the European powers decided to propose a general partition of China. On 1., the Qing were unpopular and decaying fast in the last decades of their reign but, even despite all that, enough of the population and military was willing to take orders from Beijing that they could still survive until the 20th century. 1840 does not see the Qing in such a dismal state. On 2., sure, Russia took the opportunity to carve off a chunk of the Northeast but those lands were peripheral economically and politically. Whereas the British and French were *backing* the Qing against the Han Taiping. If direct conquest would have been more profitable or beneficial in any other many than the status quo, why support the Qing rather than undermine them? Why send them men and arms for a decade instead of using those to carve out colonies in the Far East?

 

[Glory2Cabinda]

yes but getting Hong Kong and trading rights was a hassle they would never give up a sixth of their empire even if Nanking fell. The British would never suggest such a daft idea they would have to burn China to the ground to get their way.

 

[Avrorrange]

I'd argue it would not be a 1-1 comparison between the Manchu conquest and a hypothetical British conquest, just from the nature of the two empires and the state of China in both 1640 and 1840.
On one hand, the Manchu were able to coopt the existing power structures after decades of enticing disgruntled Ming generals with imperial marriage and promises of better treatment than by the Ming, who generally favoured the scholar-gentry and bureaucracy over the military, recruiting officials from the Han Chinese under their rule, and adopting Chinese legal systems, all of which smoothed over the transition from the Ming to Qing. Plus, with the general chaos and banditry much of China had descended into, much of the populace was willing to play along, if only to regain some semblance of public order and safety.

In contrast with a British conquest, where the British have little to no understanding of Chinese legal systems and few individuals willing or able to work (language barriers) with them to begin with while the Qing are far from the disorder that marked the end of the Ming or Qing dynasties. Whereas Africa and India were long divided and not incredibly centralised, Qing China was in its 2nd century and the Qing needed more than 40 years to completely subdue an empire that had been declining for decades beforehand.

It's also worth noting that, despite the complete disaster of the Taiping Civil War, 1. the Qing were able to limp on for another 50 years and 2. none of the European powers decided to propose a general partition of China. On 1., the Qing were unpopular and decaying fast in the last decades of their reign but, even despite all that, enough of the population and military was willing to take orders from Beijing that they could still survive until the 20th century. 1840 does not see the Qing in such a dismal state. On 2., sure, Russia took the opportunity to carve off a chunk of the Northeast but those lands were peripheral economically and politically. Whereas the British and French were *backing* the Qing against the Han Taiping. If direct conquest would have been more profitable or beneficial in any other many than the status quo, why support the Qing rather than undermine them? Why send them men and arms for a decade instead of using those to carve out colonies in the Far East?

I’d say that the Qing Dynasty survived largely because it projected an image of a large unified empire than because it is one.In the First Sino-Japanese War for example,most Europeans blindly overestimated the capabilities of the Qing Dynasty and thought that it would win based upon it’s size and theoretical capabilities rather than actual ones.We have to remember that the British of the time most likely did not have as much information as we did. It is easy to say what they could have done with hindsight, but at the time the British and other Europeans were most likely limited by the fog of war and a general lack of information given trade with China at the time was limited to a few coastal ports.Finally, European colonialism was mercantile in nature. If they can get economic domination through neo-colonialism, they will do so just the same without bothering to actual conquer places.

If the British were to try a full scale conquest of Chinese provinces in 1840, there is little that the Qing Dynasty could do to stop them.The whole struggle would be so one-sided that it wouldn’t even be funny.The Qing Dynasty did not even have a functional military at that point,with most soldiers being untrained mobs that are opium addicts.If the British were able to sever the grand canal,which they were poised on doing,then the Qing Empire would be completely bankrupt.

Unlike the Ming Dynasty, the Qing Dynasty could not even find support from ethno-nationalism.What is worthwhile to note about the Ming Dynasty is that anti-Ming rebels ultimately chose to join the Ming Dynasty and resist the Manchus collectively. To encourage such sentiments would be the death of the Qing Dynasty.

Finally, the Taiping rebellion was suppressed because of the support of the gentry elite. To them, the Taiping rebellion was class warfare.The Taiping rebels have declared war upon them as a class. Without that happening, there is no doubt in my mind that the Qing Dynasty would have been walked over by the rebels.

The British may not give a fuck abut Confucian ideals, but they are most likely content with leaving the day to day running of the Chinese colonies to the gentry elite just like they did elsewhere.Finally, there’s the shock and awe factor. The Confucian elites were fighting for self-preservation during the Taiping rebellion. They were fighting because they had no choice and because they also had Western support, which evened the odds in their favor. To fight a professional British army however, that risks a lot without necessarily being able to defeat them. Why fight them if you can join them and preserve your wealth and status?

 

[TheCrucible]

I’d say that the Qing Dynasty survived largely because it projected an image of a large unified empire than because it is one.In the First Sino-Japanese War for example,most Europeans blindly overestimated the capabilities of the Qing Dynasty and thought that it would win based upon it’s size and theoretical capabilities rather than actual ones.We have to remember that the British of the time most likely did not have as much information as we did. It is easy to say what they could have done with hindsight, but at the time the British and other Europeans were most likely limited by the fog of war and a general lack of information given trade with China at the time was limited to a few coastal ports.Finally, European colonialism was mercantile in nature. If they can get economic domination through neo-colonialism, they will do so just the same without bothering to actual conquer places.

If the British were to try a full scale conquest of Chinese provinces in 1840, there is little that the Qing Dynasty could do to stop them.The whole struggle would be so one-sided that it wouldn’t even be funny.The Qing Dynasty did not even have a functional military at that point,with most soldiers being untrained mobs that are opium addicts.If the British were able to sever the grand canal,which they were poised on doing,then the Qing Empire would be completely bankrupt.

Unlike the Ming Dynasty, the Qing Dynasty could not even find support because of ethno-nationalism.What is worthwhile to note about the Ming Dynasty is that anti-Ming rebels ultimately chose to join the Ming Dynasty and resist the Manchus collectively. To encourage such sentiments would be the death of the Qing Dynasty.

Finally, the Taiping rebellion was suppressed because of the support of the gentry elite. To them, the Taiping rebellion was class warfare.The Taiping rebels have declared war upon them as a class. Without that happening, there is no doubt in my mind that the Qing Dynasty would have been walked over by the rebels.

The British may not give a fuck abut Confucian ideals, but they are most likely content with leaving the day to day running of the Chinese colonies to the gentry elite just like they did elsewhere.Finally, there’s the shock and awe factor. The Confucian elites were fighting for self-preservation during the Taiping rebellion. They were fighting because they had no choice and because they also had Western support, which evened the odds in their favor. To fight a professional British army however, that risks a lot without necessarily being able to defeat them. Why fight them if you can join them and preserve your wealth and status?

Pretty much this. A state needs a police force, an army and a group of tax collectors to to have a central body at least. The fact the Qing didn't shows how decentralized and corrupt it was.

If we moved forward I would like to know the effects of this.