Why Did Nobody Try To Colonize China?

kernals12

Banned
It seems like a rule of human civilization, at least until the last century when we decided that self-determination was good: if you don't colonize, you will be colonized. At one point, European powers controlled all of the Western Hemisphere and Africa (besides Ethiopia and Liberia, sort of). The Ottomans, ruling from Turkey, took control of all of the Middle East west of Iran, and then that was given to the French and British after the First World War. The British took all of South Asia (including India) besides Afghanistan. The Russians took Central Asia. The French got Southeast Asia, besides Siam (now Thailand). But there is one glaring exception: China. It is the world's largest nation and while it had some chunks taken by the Russians, Japanese and others, it always remained nominally independent. So why did nobody try to make it into a colony during the 19th century or earlier?
 
So why did nobody try to make it into a colony?
Erm, Japan did try. What do you think they were trying to do before and during WW2?

Edit: And for other powers, for a country that large they would never be able to swallow it in one bite, hence they started in chunks. Compare the British conquest of India.
 
Why do that when you can do what the British did to it? Conquering such a robust state with a massive population and strong traditions of ruling themselves would be a gigantic headache. Even if holding it all was possible, it wouldn't be worth it.

The British found easier ways of exploiting China and profited immensely. The Japanese tried just what you proposed, and see how that worked out for them.
 
I mean, China was 1. always massive with lots of people and resources to throw at problems 2. rarely insurmountably far behind the leading countries in the world in terms of war and industry 3. had no other structural weaknesses such as extra disease susceptibility (rather the reverse was true) and 4. (unlike Vietnam or Korea) a lot of it is quite inland and not great for the maritime powers to exploit.

Pretty sure it's one of the hardest challengers for a colonizer, and harder than most of Europe.
 
Both Britain and America were keen to protect Chinese trade which would be harmed if China was partitioned. The British in particular wanted to limit Russian advances into North China/Mongolia
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
The West China could have potentially be colonized by Russia or any other Western Power considering its strategic richness and lower population. But East China is very very difficult as it already had a strong and a populous empire. If the Empire was weaker,it could potentially have been. But that colonization would look way different compared to the colonialism in other places.
 
The West China could have potentially be colonized by Russia or any other Western Power considering its strategic richness and lower population. But East China is very very difficult as it already had a strong and a populous empire. If the Empire was weaker,it could potentially have been. But that colonization would look way different compared to the colonialism in other places.

This is very true. The densely populated Chinese heartland would be hard to colonize, but the rest might be possible. OTL, the Europeans took control of key cities in eastern China, being allowed free use of their ports, to trade in them untaxed, and to police them. The countryside around these cities was integrated into "Spheres of Influence.

spheres-of-influence-in-china.jpg


Apart from this, Russia had plans to incorporate Mongolia (possibly including Inner Mongolia), Manchuria, and east Turkestan into its empire. This would be more or less plausible due to their low populations, and the similarities with other conquered populations in Russia, only Manchuria (at least the south), the homeland of the Qing emperors, would have to nominally remain Chinese. British attempts to keep China from collapsing were largely responsible for stopping Russian expansion in the region, but most of the Tsars weren't exactly super competent themselves later on, so they wouldn't be able to pull it off either way.

Britain also had plans to make Tibet a "princely state of the Raj". If Tibet split off from Qing china early on, this would likely have happened.

The reason it never happened was: Huge population, fairly high tech, massive land. Colonization of regions that were, essentially, already (Chinese) colonies was plausible, but complete colonization of China would have been suicide.
 

kernals12

Banned
This is very true. The densely populated Chinese heartland would be hard to colonize, but the rest might be possible. OTL, the Europeans took control of key cities in eastern China, being allowed free use of their ports, to trade in them untaxed, and to police them. The countryside around these cities was integrated into "Spheres of Influence.

View attachment 449808

Apart from this, Russia had plans to incorporate Mongolia (possibly including Inner Mongolia), Manchuria, and east Turkestan into its empire. This would be more or less plausible due to their low populations, and the similarities with other conquered populations in Russia, only Manchuria (at least the south), the homeland of the Qing emperors, would have to nominally remain Chinese. British attempts to keep China from collapsing were largely responsible for stopping Russian expansion in the region, but most of the Tsars weren't exactly super competent themselves later on, so they wouldn't be able to pull it off either way.

Britain also had plans to make Tibet a "princely state of the Raj". If Tibet split off from Qing china early on, this would likely have happened.

The reason it never happened was: Huge population, fairly high tech, massive land. Colonization of regions that were, essentially, already (Chinese) colonies was plausible, but complete colonization of China would have been suicide.
It's too bad Tibet wasn't made a Princely state of the Raj. We could've had a Free Tibet in 1947. And East Turkestan would've been independent in 1991 instead of having the Chinese put its people in concentration camps.
 
It's too bad Tibet wasn't made a Princely state of the Raj. We could've had a Free Tibet in 1947. And East Turkestan would've been independent in 1991 instead of having the Chinese put its people in concentration camps.
Hong Kong was a British possession and look at it now.

Tibet's likewise far too important for China to just allow as a separate entity able to threaten its most important rivers (the Yangtze, Yellow, and Mekong Rivers all originate from the Tibetan Plateau), especially with a geopolitical rival like India right there and having border disputes with China. The Tibetan Plateau's natural resources and geopolitical position make it a top priority for China to secure one way or another.
 

kernals12

Banned
Hong Kong was a British possession and look at it now.

Tibet's likewise far too important for China to just allow as a separate entity able to threaten its most important rivers (the Yangtze, Yellow, and Mekong Rivers all originate from the Tibetan Plateau), especially with a geopolitical rival like India right there and having border disputes with China. The Tibetan Plateau's natural resources and geopolitical position make it a top priority for China to secure one way or another.
Hong Kong is not a fair comparison. The British were obligated by a treaty signed in 1898 to give back the land after 99 years.
And I think the Americans would give the Tibetans a security guarantee.
 
Europeans did try to colonize china. (Hong Kong). But the European Nations realized that China had a large enough population that colonizing anything further than the coast would be to costly. And no king in Europe could justify the amount of soldiers it would take to bring the nation to heel.
 
Hong Kong is not a fair comparison. The British were obligated by a treaty signed in 1898 to give back the land after 99 years.
And I think the Americans would give the Tibetans a security guarantee.
The New Territories were under the 99 Year Lease. Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon Peninsula were ceded in perpetuity by the Qing in 1842 and 1860, respectively.

And America was in no position to dictate Chinese policy in the 1940s after the Communists overran the Nationalists. America's power projection into landlocked Tibet would've been near zero and, seeing the results of the Korean War (Korea by contrast being a peninsula that was easy to supply and reinforce by sea), unlikely to keep Tibet free forever. There's not enough public support to prop up a nation that would take the whole of the US's military might to keep alive and is right next to a major belligerent with major strategic interests in the region when Tibet is on the other side of the planet and has no clear strategic benefits to the US other than as a threat against China, who the US wanted to court against the USSR. Keeping Tibet alive keeps Sino-Soviet relations far more cordial, which keeps the Communist Bloc far stronger in the Cold War.

Plus, even if Tibet wasn't formally annexed, it's right next to China, far less populated, and far poorer in total. By means military, demographic, and/or economic, China was going to seek to make Tibet subservient, at the least.
 
Hong Kong is not a fair comparison. The British were obligated by a treaty signed in 1898 to give back the land after 99 years.
And I think the Americans would give the Tibetans a security guarantee.

Why, there's no strategic upside to it when you consider the costs?
 

kernals12

Banned
The New Territories were under the 99 Year Lease. Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon Peninsula were ceded in perpetuity by the Qing in 1842 and 1860, respectively.

And America was in no position to dictate Chinese policy in the 1940s after the Communists overran the Nationalists. America's power projection into landlocked Tibet would've been near zero and, seeing the results of the Korean War (Korea by contrast being a peninsula that was easy to supply and reinforce by sea), unlikely to keep Tibet free forever. There's not enough public support to prop up a nation that would take the whole of the US's military might to keep alive and is right next to a major belligerent with major strategic interests in the region when Tibet is on the other side of the planet and has no clear strategic benefits to the US other than as a threat against China, who the US wanted to court against the USSR. Keeping Tibet alive keeps Sino-Soviet relations far more cordial, which keeps the Communist Bloc far stronger in the Cold War.

Plus, even if Tibet wasn't formally annexed, it's right next to China, far less populated, and far poorer in total. By means military, demographic, and/or economic, China was going to seek to make Tibet subservient, at the least.
If the Chinese tried to seize Tibet, they would be in violation of international law, and the world community would have an excuse to go to war over it. And you're overlooking one very important factor.
image (3).jpg

Certainly the threat of nuclear annihilation would keep the Chinese out.
 
It'd be a free country sharing a border with Red China and the Soviet Union. Certainly nothing could be more strategically useful than that.
Because the US has to guarantee the security of a landlocked nation? And what can Tibet offer America that justifies risking WWII (it'd be a lot easier to be friends with India, since India can, you know, actually defend itself).

And what US President could possibly be rabid enough to fight WWIII over a bunch of mountains and some yaks? The real world isn't a game of Risk.
 
There have been times when China was 'occupied' by foreign powers (even before the age of colonialism). The Mongol hordes managed to capture China but at that point, they decided to let the Mongols become emperors due to 'Mandate of Heaven' and tried to sino-fy the Mongol dynasty that was in power. Yuan dynasty ruled from early 13th century to mid-14th century and were kicked out because they weren't sino-fied and had their own culture & customs that they followed.
 
If the Chinese tried to seize Tibet, they would be in violation of international law, and the world community would have an excuse to go to war over it. And you're overlooking one very important factor.
View attachment 449824
Certainly the threat of nuclear annihilation would keep the Chinese out.

In the late 1940s there is all kinds of ethnic cleansing and other violence going on around the world - in Eastern Europe, in Palestine, in India/Pakistan. The world is probably not going to care if Mao sends his troops to Tibet.
 

kernals12

Banned
In the late 1940s there is all kinds of ethnic cleansing and other violence going on around the world - in Eastern Europe, in Palestine, in India/Pakistan. The world is probably not going to care if Mao sends his troops to Tibet.
Tibet would've been an independent nation. Unilateral annexation was, and is, a big no-no. That's why the Korean war happened.
 
Top