> China, like india, under western colonialism went from being the largest economy in the world to an insignificant one.
That's getting the causality backwards. Western colonialism didn't reduce China and India to insignificant economies; their insignificance is what enabled Western powers to colonize them so easily. The reduction to insignificance already happened earlier, when the West began to industrialize.
Of course the Qing emperors realized that they wouldn't be able to resist Western armies without owning similar weaponry. Their biggest mistake was simply buying them. In comparison, Japan suffered similar humiliation, complete with Western battleships forcibly opening ports for trade. The deciding difference was that they decided to not only import Western weapons, but to learn how to make them themselves, industrializing quickly. That was so successful that halfway through China's "century of humiliation", Japan became one of the humiliators.
> IP theft is justified because that's the history of business.
Agreed, and the humiliation would have lasted a lot shorter than a century if the Qing had realized this. Ironically, if they had done so, foreign Manchu would likely still hold an outsized influence in Chinese politics today.
> their historical narratives are true.
The facts of the narrative can be true while the evaluation and implied causal relationships can be misleading. For example, the establishment of free-trade zones for foreign merchants is judged to be humiliating because it was the consequence of military defeat. But when the CCP later established special economic zones to boost international trade, that was seen as very much a good thing.
> That's getting the causality backwards. Western colonialism didn't reduce China and India to insignificant economies; their insignificance is what enabled Western powers to colonize them so easily.
This is one of the most outlandishly false things I've read. China and india's economic significance is the reason why western powers wanted to colonize china and india in the first place. Their economic importance is why europe first sought out india and china. It's why columbus "sailed the ocean blue".
> The reduction to insignificance already happened earlier, when the West began to industrialize.
The colonization of india and china started before western industrialization. And it was colonizers who prevented india and china from industrializing like Japan. Funny how colonization ended and china ( and india though more slowly ) started industrializing huh?
> For example, the establishment of free-trade zones for foreign merchants is judged to be humiliating because it was the consequence of military defeat. But when the CCP later established special economic zones to boost international trade, that was seen as very much a good thing.
Because the former was for the benefit of foreign merchants to loot a nation and the latter was for the benefit of china. Surely, even you can see the difference of a territory conquered by a foreign power to loot a nation vs a territory a nation sets up itself for trade?
No it didn't. The first opium wars, at the start of the century of humiliation, began in 1839. Industrialization began in the 1780s. It was literally heavily armed, iron armored steamships versus middle-ages style sailboats. The Chinese were completely fucked at every single level economically compared to Great Britain, and that's why they lost. They literally didn't stand a chance due to their poor technological level, and that was pretty much their fault.
Using GDP to measure economical supremacy when the two economies are as wildly incomparable as industrialized Great Britain and the agrarian Qing Dynasty is misleading at every single level. Yeah, China could grow hundreds of times more rice than Great Britain ever could. But Qing China wasn't able to make machine guns, it wasn't able to make steamships, it wasn't able to make any industrial equipment. And that's how Great Britain with 50 million people militarily crushed Qing China. It's because China failed to keep up with technology and lost it's massive lead during the renaissance. That meant that it got lost in the dust in the industrial wars of the time. It's really, honestly, a massive mistake that the Qing Dynasty made by not following western developments and not trying to industrialize despite its massive resources. It's economy was just a lot worse. Like, GDP per capita per year around 300$ (2019 dollars) bad. And that's what led to the century of humiliation, that plus their failure to adapt and industrialize when they had the chance, believing that they could buy the capabilities to face off with a modern army.
> The first opium wars, at the start of the century of humiliation, began in 1839. Industrialization began in the 1780s.
We can argue about when industrialization began til the cows come home, but the benefits of industrialization weren't materialized until the latter half of the 1800s - after the opium wars when britain used stolen chinese capital and stolen indian resources.
Everything you've written are nonsense repeated over and over again. It does get exhausting correcting them, but I'll give it another shot.
> It was literally heavily armed, iron armored steamships versus middle-ages style sailboats.
That was the case everywhere. Steamships didn't become truly relevant until the latter half of the 1800s because of how much coal was needed for these ships. Think about it. When the british were trying to blockade the US, it wasn't with steamships. It was with sail ships. Hell most of the naval ships decades after the opium war were still powered by sail.
"sail was still the only solution for virtually all trade between China and Western Europe or East Coast America. "
> The Chinese were completely fucked at every single level economically compared to Great Britain, and that's why they lost.
Is that why the US beat britain in the american revolution? Because our economy was so much superior to Great Britain? Is that why the mongols were able to conquer china, russia, middle east? Because their economy was so much larger? Is that why the barbarians were able to overrun the roman empire? Because their economy was so much larger? Britain economy had nothing to do with opium wars. Do you know why? Because britain started the opium wars because china produced so much goods britain wanted while britain produced very little that china wanted. So the trade deficit was so skewed in favor of china that capital flowed exclusively from britain to china. The opium wars was britain's attempt to remedy it. Since britain's "amazing economy" produced nothing of value to china, they wanted to peddle drugs to china.
I won't bother with the rest. Figure it out yourself. If britain's economy was so great ( as you implied ) there wouldn't have been any opium wars because britain could cost-effectively produce stuff for china. They couldn't. Hence why they needed to peddle drugs. Why do you think the corner drug dealers are dealing drugs? Because they can't produce or do anything else of value. That was britain.
I never said that Britain was justified in any way in the Opium Wars, far from it. But that's irrelevant to my point anyways.
Britain had ulterior problems than the trade imbalance with China. Throwing out 2.6 million pounds of opium (weight) and refusing to talk about it as you denied an embassy, because you saw yourself as a higher form of civilization than those pesky barbarians in the east of the world did absolutely nothing to help, which is why incidentally Russia France and the US were supportive despite not having the same problem as Britain. Refusing to consider a peace treaty, torturing POWs, killing messengers and so on is also a good part of why the opium wars actually went through, there were quite a few times parliament almost shut it down, and I'm pretty sure were it not for the insult that Qing China kept imposing due to their frankly stupid feudal bureacracy and It is true that opium had a large part in it and the British did like the tax revenue it gave. But, as it happens, the fact that China wasn't particularly interested in British manufactured goods isn't relevant to that question, because the fact that China wasn't interested in industrializing its vast worker base has nothing to do with the benefits of industrialization.
Your analysis of steamships is incorrect, by the way. 6 British steamships sunk hundreds of Chinese ships, and were able to manoeuvre in ways that Chinese didn't know were possible at all. They also single handedly destroyed hundreds of artillery pieces and by virtue of being able to access shallower waters and going against wind and current so easily they were able to attack Naval fortifications from a side they weren't designed to protect from, destroying them, and were able to carry firepower comparable to entire Chinese fleets. Read about the individual Naval battles in the first Opium war, it's actually incredible just how efficient steamships were since the very beginning of the Opium Wars. They were literally a hard counter to the entire Chinese arsenal, except for land-based artillery of course.
My claim of GDP being a good proxy for military capability was prefaced by specifying it applied to industrialized warfare only. And it works pretty damn well, actually, if you take into account morale and readiness. Not realizing it at the time is a mistake that Hitler made invading the USSR, costing him his life, and a mistake Hirohito made despite the warnings of Yamamoto, which lead to Japan losing WW2. Its pretty damn accurate assuming two stable nation states and factoring in the monetary equivalent of throwing bodies at the enemy.
Yes, the Naval blockade of the US couldn't use steamships because they didn't have enough of them to block the entire shoreline of the US while keeping them supplied. The geography of the Chinese blockades were incredibly different. Chinese logistics were centered around the main rivers, since, you know, no real infrastructure. The British only had to blockade rivers in order to cripple the Chinese economy.
China being a huge exporter of low-value added goods and materials, it was simply impossible for Britain to balance the trade equation. The fact that that simple proposition had to lead to a war is a good insight on why we got rid of the gold standard.
Also, even before the industrial revolution, I can think of about 10 counter examples to production capability being the main driving force behind military victory, actually. Logistics and keeping your armies fed was possibly the biggest factor behind pre-industrial empires.
Saying that the industrial revolution brought no benefit to warfare until the later half of the 18th century is positively ridiculous. Using industrial weaponry European powers were able to impose disgusting imperialist régimes in a flash, because it was a huge advantage. To most of their enemies, it simply was economically and technologically (two sides of the same coin) impossible to fight back. But you can figure this one out yourself :)
> I never said that Britain was justified in any way in the Opium Wars, far from it.
I never said you did. My comment specifically debunked your assertions about "britain's superior economy", etc.
> But that's irrelevant to my point anyways.
Agreed.
> Throwing out 2.6 million pounds of opium (weight) and refusing to talk about it as you denied an embassy ...
Oh I see, now you are going to justify britain's behavior. Typical.
> 6 British steamships sunk hundreds of Chinese ships
Simply not true. There is a reason why almost all of britain's navy were powered by sail even decades after the opium war. It was britain sail powered ships that destroyed chinese ships.
> My claim of GDP being a good proxy for military capability was prefaced by specifying it applied to industrialized warfare only.
Industrialized warfare didn't really start until ww1, nearly 100 years after the first opium war.
> China being a huge exporter of low-value added goods and materials, it was simply impossible for Britain to balance the trade equation.
You are mistaking today's china with china from 200 years ago. There is a reason why "fine china" is called "fine china". Chinese goods ( tea, silk, porcelain, etc ) were considered luxury items.
> Using industrial weaponry European powers
Oh god. The muskets the british and the europeans were using were inferior to the bow and arrow. "European" weaponry didn't really separate itself from the rest until the American civil war when we started using gatling guns, ironclad ships, etc and then down the line oil for trucks, ships, etc.
Anyways, this is getting boring as I know you'll continue with your lies about the most basic of history. My goal isn't to convince you, it's to make sure people who read your lies are aware of it.
Saying that industrialization is why britain won the opium wars is like saying nuclear weapons is why the US beat britain. Strange how the amazing "industrialized" british couldn't beat the US in the american revolution nor the war of 1812.
Here's a hint. British/American industrialization took off AFTER the opium wars because the opium wars provided the capital necessary for british and american industrialization.
And if you really want to know how the british "won" the opium wars, it's simply a weak "foreign" central government and perfidious mandarins in southern china. Similar to how france took over vietnam. And how britain took over india. But you won't read about that in the history books. You have to look "behind" the history books. Hope you enjoyed the lesson.
> It was britain sail powered ships that destroyed chinese ships.
They were sail-powered steamboats. It's true that travelling all the way from Britain to China using only steam power was impossible at the time. But the very first British steamboat [1] also had sails. That way, they only had to feed the steam engines when a maneuver required it, e.g. going against the wind. That was evidently enough to win battles.
I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. China was 20% of overseas tax revenue for the British Empire, and the US wasn't selling any notable amount of opium
Pointing out that there were more casus belli than what you think doesn't mean I believe any of them justified the wars. But, Qing China objectively saw the British Empire as lower than them, and objectively refused diplomatic channels that might have avoided this mess due to their perceived racial and cultural superiority. As in many things, it wasn't completely one sided. And yes, the flayed and tortured British Officiers for no reason but to see them suffer.
You are completely clueless as to naval military technology of the time. Steamships did in fact have sails. They only used their steam engines in war situations.
The steamships used in the Opium Wars were literally iron ships. The were superior in every single way to Chinese ships, which literally could not counter them at all. It was total naval domination due to technology, nothing else.
Yes, the fact that the Chinese central government had terrible intel due to the nature of their terrible feudal bureaucracy played a role. However, the British were able to beat down fleets and armies far far far bigger than their own, repeatedly, in enemy territory. Plainly, they won because they had iron ships with the steam engine. That is the product of industrialization.
Your perceived notion of the industrial revolution is wrong, that what you say is the start of the industrial revolution is actually after the end of the industrial revolution.
Also, tea, porcelain and fine china are either raw resources, in the case of tea, or artisan work. They aren't industrial goods at all, and are the hallmark of a poor economy. China in the last 50 years is absolutely not that. While a lot of their goods are of lower quality, they are industrially produced goods, not artisan goods. That's because the CCP, even since Mao, for all their faults, recognized the mistakes of the Qing and began to mass industrialize.
That's getting the causality backwards. Western colonialism didn't reduce China and India to insignificant economies; their insignificance is what enabled Western powers to colonize them so easily. The reduction to insignificance already happened earlier, when the West began to industrialize.
Of course the Qing emperors realized that they wouldn't be able to resist Western armies without owning similar weaponry. Their biggest mistake was simply buying them. In comparison, Japan suffered similar humiliation, complete with Western battleships forcibly opening ports for trade. The deciding difference was that they decided to not only import Western weapons, but to learn how to make them themselves, industrializing quickly. That was so successful that halfway through China's "century of humiliation", Japan became one of the humiliators.
> IP theft is justified because that's the history of business.
Agreed, and the humiliation would have lasted a lot shorter than a century if the Qing had realized this. Ironically, if they had done so, foreign Manchu would likely still hold an outsized influence in Chinese politics today.
> their historical narratives are true.
The facts of the narrative can be true while the evaluation and implied causal relationships can be misleading. For example, the establishment of free-trade zones for foreign merchants is judged to be humiliating because it was the consequence of military defeat. But when the CCP later established special economic zones to boost international trade, that was seen as very much a good thing.