Discussion:
AHC: Sun Yat-sen's nightmare (US overtakes China in population)
Add Reply
David Tenner
2017-09-07 19:14:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
This--from the *San Min Chu I* (Three Principles of the People)--in
retrospect looks like one of Sun Yat-sen's odder ideas: that China was
endangered because it was falling behind the other powers in population!

"Now let us compare nation with nation as to the rate of increase of the
population. In one hundred years, America increased ten times, England
three times, Japan three times, Russia four times, Germany two and a half
times, and France by only one-fourth. This increase is partly due to a
decrease of death rate through the development of public health and
medical science, and partly due to an expansion of food supply and
livelihood through industrialization. What is the significance for China
of such rapid growth in the world's population?

"We shall be alarmed if we compare the growth of our population with that
of the rest of the Powers. For instance, the United States has increased
her population from nine million to one hundred million during the last
hundred years; at the same rate of increase the population would be one
billion after another hundred years. We often boast that our people are
unconquerable; for in the past the Mongols and the Manchus have been
gradually absorbed by the Chinese even though they once conquered the
Chinese and ruled the country. For the same reason, it is believed that
even though the Japanese and white peoples were to dominate this nation
for a while, they would eventually be absorbed by the Chinese.

"Such a prediction is too optimistic. When the Manchus conquered China,
they numbered only a little over one million people; their number was very
small in comparison with the size of the Chinese population. On the other
hand, suppose a century from now the United States has a population of one
billion--two and a half times more than our population. If the Americans,
then, were to rule China, our people would easily be assimilated because
there would be only four Chinese to every ten Americans. During the reign
of Ch'ien Lung, almost two hundred years ago, it was established that
China had a population of four hundred million. Today our population is
still four hundred million; one hundred years later, it may still be four
hundred million...

"What is really the size of our population? Without expecting an increase
as rapid as that of Japan and England, we must admit that we ought to have
increased to five hundred million since the days of Ch'ien Lung. Mr. W. W.
Rockhill, formerly American Minister at Peking and a recognized authority
on Chinese population, came to the conclusion after careful investigation,
that the population of China is about three hundred million. If that is
true, our population has decreased by one-fourth since the days of Ch'ien
Lung. Even if we estimate the present population at four hundred million,
it is fearful to think that one hundred years from now our population may
be still four hundred million while that of other nations will have
increased several times..."

http://larouchejapan.com/japanese/drupal-6.14/sites/default/files/text/San-Min-Chu-I_FINAL.pdf
(Don't worry about it being a LaRouche website; they're merely reproducing
one of the standard translations here.)

This is a good example of the hazards of straight-line extrapolation! AHC:
Make it at least partially valid. I.e., make the population of the US in
2024 (a century after Sun Yat-sen's lectures) not an unrealistic billion
people but maybe 400-500 million (more immigration and higher birth rates
than in OTL) and--much more difficult--China's only 400 million or so.
(The latter presumably requires many decades of wars and civil wars,
widespread famines and epidemics, etc.)
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
Rich Rostrom
2017-09-10 04:32:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Tenner
Make it at least partially valid. I.e., make the population of the US in
2024 (a century after Sun Yat-sen's lectures) not an unrealistic billion
people but maybe 400-500 million (more immigration and higher birth rates
than in OTL) and--much more difficult--China's only 400 million or so.
(The latter presumably requires many decades of wars and civil wars,
widespread famines and epidemics, etc.)
Possible elements:

1) Sever outlying territories. Manchuria seems the most
important, so if Manchukuo "sticks"... Loss of Xinjiang would
also contribute.

2) Mass emigration from China. But to where? The US, Australia, and
Canada were very hostile to Chinese immigration, and there
are few other regions that could receive many immigrants. The
US, and probably Canada, largely shut down immigration after
1930. (The restrictions were established in the mid-1920s, but
it was the Depression that really stopped immigration.)

However, _if_ some program or policy allowing mass immigration
from China to the US was in place, that would be a "twofer" -
diminishing China while growing the US.

3) Social conditions in China cause a _dramatic_ reduction in birth
rates, as has happened in many developed and partly developed
countries in recent decades; however, this is unlikely to do more
than stop Chinese growth, and since China was far ahead of the
US in population, this cannot be more than a contributor to the
desired result.

4) Wild card scenario.

Hitler has an accident (one assumes the PoD has to be after 1924,
so he can't catch a bullet during the 1923 putsch, so it has to
be something else). Germany becomes a somewhat militarized authoritarian
state, but not _Nazi_. Germany maintains good relations with China, up
to and including major military aid to the KMT government against warlords,
Reds, and Japan. Chiang crushes the warlords and Reds, establishes a strong
state, and acquires not only arms but arms industry from Germany.

"World War II" pits the USSR and Japan against Germany and China (and
various east European allies, including Poland). Germany breaks the USSR,
and China moves into Siberia, Manchuria, and Korea.

Somewhere along the line, China adopts a loosely federalist organization.
"China" is redefined as eastern "Han" China. Tibet, Xinjiang, Mongolia,
Korea, Manchuria, and Siberia become constituent states of the East Asian
Union - along with China. China settles much of its population into some of
the new "states", especially Siberia. The population of China "proper" drops
so far that the US catches up.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
The Old Man
2017-09-10 10:32:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
4) Wild card scenario.
"World War II" pits the USSR and Japan against Germany and China (and
various east European allies, including Poland). Germany breaks the USSR,
and China moves into Siberia, Manchuria, and Korea.
This sounds interesting, but how? Germany (and others) going after Russia is like David vs. Goliath, but on where Goliath is supplying the stones for David's sling.

Regards,
John Braungart
Rich Rostrom
2017-09-11 20:42:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Old Man
This sounds interesting, but how? Germany (and
others) going after Russia is like David vs.
Goliath...
Huh? The USSR's population was maybe twice Germany's,
if one included all the non-Russians. And large parts
of that population were _very_ disaffected - hundreds
of thousands joined the Axis forces OTL, even though
Hitler didn't want them at first, and despite gross
abuses by Axis forces.

Germany had a larger industrial economy (more steel,
more manufacturing).

Germany could have substantial European allies in
this sort of scenario - Poland, Romania, Finland,
the Baltic Republics.

Assume China under a German-assisted KMT regime gets
its act together, it could more than offset Japan on
land.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
The Old Man
2017-09-11 22:26:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by The Old Man
This sounds interesting, but how? Germany (and
others) going after Russia is like David vs.
Goliath...
Huh? The USSR's population was maybe twice Germany's,
if one included all the non-Russians. And large parts
of that population were _very_ disaffected - hundreds
of thousands joined the Axis forces OTL, even though
Hitler didn't want them at first, and despite gross
abuses by Axis forces.
Germany had a larger industrial economy (more steel,
more manufacturing).
Germany could have substantial European allies in
this sort of scenario - Poland, Romania, Finland,
the Baltic Republics.
Assume China under a German-assisted KMT regime gets
its act together, it could more than offset Japan on
land.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
All I was referring to was that Russia was supplying much of Germany's strategic materials before Barbarossa and even if the had much of Europe backing them, they still needed those materials. Think Germany's jet engines that were good for about 24 HOURS of flight time because the turbine blades would disintegrate after that time.

Regards,
John Braungart
WolfBear
2017-09-26 21:55:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by David Tenner
Make it at least partially valid. I.e., make the population of the US in
2024 (a century after Sun Yat-sen's lectures) not an unrealistic billion
people but maybe 400-500 million (more immigration and higher birth rates
than in OTL) and--much more difficult--China's only 400 million or so.
(The latter presumably requires many decades of wars and civil wars,
widespread famines and epidemics, etc.)
1) Sever outlying territories. Manchuria seems the most
important, so if Manchukuo "sticks"... Loss of Xinjiang would
also contribute.
2) Mass emigration from China. But to where? The US, Australia, and
Canada were very hostile to Chinese immigration, and there
are few other regions that could receive many immigrants. The
US, and probably Canada, largely shut down immigration after
1930. (The restrictions were established in the mid-1920s, but
it was the Depression that really stopped immigration.)
However, _if_ some program or policy allowing mass immigration
from China to the US was in place, that would be a "twofer" -
diminishing China while growing the US.
3) Social conditions in China cause a _dramatic_ reduction in birth
rates, as has happened in many developed and partly developed
countries in recent decades; however, this is unlikely to do more
than stop Chinese growth, and since China was far ahead of the
US in population, this cannot be more than a contributor to the
desired result.
4) Wild card scenario.
Hitler has an accident (one assumes the PoD has to be after 1924,
so he can't catch a bullet during the 1923 putsch, so it has to
be something else). Germany becomes a somewhat militarized authoritarian
state, but not _Nazi_. Germany maintains good relations with China, up
to and including major military aid to the KMT government against warlords,
Reds, and Japan. Chiang crushes the warlords and Reds, establishes a strong
state, and acquires not only arms but arms industry from Germany.
"World War II" pits the USSR and Japan against Germany and China (and
various east European allies, including Poland). Germany breaks the USSR,
and China moves into Siberia, Manchuria, and Korea.
Somewhere along the line, China adopts a loosely federalist organization.
"China" is redefined as eastern "Han" China. Tibet, Xinjiang, Mongolia,
Korea, Manchuria, and Siberia become constituent states of the East Asian
Union - along with China. China settles much of its population into some of
the new "states", especially Siberia. The population of China "proper" drops
so far that the US catches up.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Why would a non-Nazi Germany fight Russia, though? After all, German conservatives wanted the Polish Corridor back and perhaps to annex Austria as well; however, they had no desire to destroy Russia or even to recreate the Brest-Litovsk peace.
Rich Rostrom
2017-09-29 01:56:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by WolfBear
Why would a non-Nazi Germany fight Russia, though?
Because a conservative German regime would be very much
at odds with the Bolsheviks?

Germany could become the protector of the Baltic states,
Finland, and even Poland against Soviet expansion. If the
Soviets were to conquer those areas, the threat to
Germany would be acute.

If the USSR was not fully deterred, it might attack,
thinking Germany would not act, but Germany does -
and so the war begins.

I don't put this forward as a probable scenario, merely
as a plausible element of a TL that meets the AHC.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
WolfBear
2017-09-29 02:20:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by WolfBear
Why would a non-Nazi Germany fight Russia, though?
Because a conservative German regime would be very much
at odds with the Bolsheviks?
Germany could become the protector of the Baltic states,
Finland, and even Poland against Soviet expansion. If the
Soviets were to conquer those areas, the threat to
Germany would be acute.
If the USSR was not fully deterred, it might attack,
thinking Germany would not act, but Germany does -
and so the war begins.
I don't put this forward as a probable scenario, merely
as a plausible element of a TL that meets the AHC.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
Please keep in mind that even Weimar Germany had no problem cooperating with the Soviet Union when it suited its own interests, though. For instance, go take a look at the Rapallo Treaty.

Also, I don't think that Germany would be too eager to protect Poland unless Poland agrees to hand over Danzig and the Corridor to Germany. Indeed, a German-Soviet partition of Poland--with a rump independent Poland remaining--seems more likely.* After all, German-Polish relations were very hostile even in the days of the Weimar Republic (as evidenced by Weimar's trade war against Poland)!

*Unlike in our TL, Germany might actually be able to get away with such a move in this TL. After all, the Anglo-French DoWs in 1939 in our TL were issued in the backdrop of Nazi treachery in occupying the rest of Czechia after the Munich Agreement. In contrast, in this TL, Germany wouldn't lay claim to either Czechia or the Sudetenland and thus wouldn't waste the goodwill that it had in Anglo-French eyes.
The Horny Goat
2017-09-29 02:48:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
*Unlike in our TL, Germany might actually be able to get away with such a m=
ove in this TL. After all, the Anglo-French DoWs in 1939 in our TL were iss=
ued in the backdrop of Nazi treachery in occupying the rest of Czechia afte=
r the Munich Agreement. In contrast, in this TL, Germany wouldn't lay claim=
to either Czechia or the Sudetenland and thus wouldn't waste the goodwill =
that it had in Anglo-French eyes.
My grandmother told me that after the occupation of Prague the word in
the street was that war with Germany was inevitable sooner or later
and it was only a matter of time.

I would argue that that event was pivotal since this more than any
single factor "proved" to the UK government after the fall of France
that there was no accomodation to be made with Germany which Hitler
would keep a micro-second longer than was convenient to him.

I would argue that that cost the Nazis far more than the value of
anything they got from Bohema during Jan - Sept 1939.
WolfBear
2017-09-29 19:10:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
*Unlike in our TL, Germany might actually be able to get away with such a m=
ove in this TL. After all, the Anglo-French DoWs in 1939 in our TL were iss=
ued in the backdrop of Nazi treachery in occupying the rest of Czechia afte=
r the Munich Agreement. In contrast, in this TL, Germany wouldn't lay claim=
to either Czechia or the Sudetenland and thus wouldn't waste the goodwill =
that it had in Anglo-French eyes.
My grandmother told me that after the occupation of Prague the word in
the street was that war with Germany was inevitable sooner or later
and it was only a matter of time.
I would argue that that event was pivotal since this more than any
single factor "proved" to the UK government after the fall of France
that there was no accomodation to be made with Germany which Hitler
would keep a micro-second longer than was convenient to him.
I would argue that that cost the Nazis far more than the value of
anything they got from Bohema during Jan - Sept 1939.
Completely agreed with all of this.

Indeed, a non-Nazi, conservative Germany probably wouldn't press any claims to Czechoslovakia and in turn wouldn't squander the goodwill that it had with Britain and France. In turn, this could eventually allow it to invade Poland--together with the Soviet Union, which had its own claims on Poland--and take back Danzig and the Polish Corridor without an Anglo-French declaration of war in response (France might very well want to act, but would it do so if Britain is unwilling to go along?).

Then, after the invasion, a rump independent Poland would be maintained in order to provide a buffer zone between Germany and the Soviet Union. (In contrast, in our TL, Poland's independence was totally destroyed in 1939.)
Loading...