Which country was more powerful militarily in 1910: China or Germany?

More powerful military power overall in 1910?

  • Qing Empire

    Votes: 2 3.6%
  • German Empire

    Votes: 54 96.4%

  • Total voters
    56

heavenlykaghan

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,558
China was stronger in 1937 than in 1900.. that´s the reason because Japan failed (1937 - 1945) but Britain, France and Eight-Powers alliance won against China in China.
Well, I know strategic analysis isn't your strong point, but we've been over this several times and its getting really repetitive. Read post 57 and 96 over.
China in 1900 was vastly more powerful than it was in 1937 in just about every indicator of military might.

The performance of the Qing in 1900 was yes much better than that of the ROC in 1937.
China in 1900 only lost Beijing after over a year of fighting; the allied nations only occupied a territory ranging from Zheng Ding in the south, to Zhangjia kou in the north, Shanhai pass in the east to Nianzi pass in the west. A territory that is restricted largely to northern Hebei and parts of eastern Shanxi (less than a fifteenth of China proper both in land and people) and the country sides were never controlled (nor did the vast majority of China's most advanced New Army participate in the fight).
The ROC lost both Beijing AND Nanjing in just 5 months of fighting; in a year Japan occupied virtually the entire sea coast of China and almost the entire eastern half of China proper all the way up to Changsha.


Boxer and 8 Nations activity in Purple:
1578496852993.png

Japanese controlled area in red:


1578497707892.png




Japan took Beijing in just 22 days with no defeat, annihilating Chinese forces over 4 times their size. The 8 Nations took three times as long to take Beijing and their initial expedition under Seymour was defeated by the Qing army and the 8 Nations nearly lost in the Siege of Tianjin even though in both cases the formal Chinese forces had less than a 2:1 numerical advantage.


The disparity between the ROC and the Qing is even more revealing in the invasion of Manchuria. Japan effortlessly took Manchuria in 1931 almost without a fight with just 17,000 soldiers in 3 months, largely eliminating major guerilla resistance by 1940, whereas the Russians needed 135,000 to overwhelm Manchuria in 1900 in the same amount of time, being beat back at Ningguta several times, and the Russians never managed to control the country side; the rural guerrilla resistance by the Hong Huzi was never annihilated and continued until 1905, aiding Japan in the defeat of Russia.


China won the War of Resistance against Japan in 1937 because the Japanese objective was the total conquest of the country, and more importantly, they surrendered because of fighting with the United States and later the USSR. The Allied Nations in 1900 was not aiming at the total conquest of the country, but merely demanding an indemnity and sphere of economic influence (which China in 1937 still falls under).


The Industrial potential of the late Qing was far greater than the ROC and not much behind Japan.
China produced about 30,000-40,000 tons of steel in the early 1900s, whereas Japan produced around 50,000-60,000 tons. The United States led with 13-14 million tons.
The ROC in 1937 only produced 25,000 tons of steel whereas Japan produced 5 million and the United States produced 50 million tons. The ROC industrial potential lagged far more behind the industrial powers than the late Qing.

The Chinese Navy in the 1900s even after the annihilation of the Beiyang navy, had over 40 warships, many of which were self made.
The Hanyang factory founded by the Qing could also produce 2000-3000 of native made type 88 Mausers (and native made Maxim guns) annually by the 1900s, and produced 3,900 heavy cannons.
The ROC in 1937 could not make a single warship, only produced 98 cannons during the war against Japan and relied on the old Qing factories to make outdated Mausers.

The Qing in 1900 still appointed governors to individual provinces and the local military were more or less still under central control. The ROC in 1937 merely recognized existing warlords and their private military forces through coercion.

The Qing in 1900 had tremendous influence over the rural militia through a united Confucian front with the rural gentry class. The bulk of rural China was behind the Qing government, and the boxers all over the country were anti-foreign; the allies only had a collaboranist Chinese force of some 1,200 in the entire Boxer rebellion and the occupation afterwards. The ROC government was largely isolated from the rural militia and elites in these regions; the Japanese were able to create a collaborationst Chinese force of over 1 million in the war.


In fact... never a Big Imperial City was conquered by their enemies (nor München, nor Strasburg, nor Metz, Frankfurt, Dresde, Hamburg, Hannover etc etc)...So.. yes.... II Reich evidenced to be stronger than China in 1871 - 1918.
We've long ceased to compare the Reich with China. We've been comparing states like Italy and Austro-Hungarian Empire with China for the past 20 pages if you bothered to read.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mariusj
Dec 2015
370
NYC
China was stronger in 1937 than in 1900.. that´s the reason because Japan failed (1937 - 1945) but Britain, France and Eight-Powers alliance won against China in China. Not off topic.. because topis is Imperial China and II Reich.... welll... II Reich NEVER lost the capital... 1871 - 1918. In fact... never a Big Imperial City was conquered by their enemies (nor München, nor Strasburg, nor Metz, Frankfurt, Dresde, Hamburg, Hannover etc etc)...So.. yes.... II Reich evidenced to be stronger than China in 1871 - 1918.
China, even during the time when Japan launched a full scale invasion of China (during 1937 - 1945), was still weak, was not industrialized, it's weaponry still heavily outdated and impoverished by years of civil war and government corruption. The alliance took Beijing during a time when there was rebellions and utter chaos in China due to Qing corruption and not being able to deal with foreign interventions. It even took an alliance to take a single city, yet could not take the entire country. Amazing how a single force such as Japan managed to take a large sliver of China, yet an alliance could only take one tiny part of China.

And again, why are you bringing up places such as Germany and Russia and compare it to the failure of Qing China not being able to fight back against Western Imperialists and Japan? China is not Germany or Russia and vice versa, and trying to even make a comparison is entirely bollocks. There are different scenarios as to why one empire got conquered and why the other didn't.
 

mariusj

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,057
Los Angeles
It is not an opinion. To my knowledge it never happened.
Now, are you then saying if something NEVER happened then we can use that as a valid reason?

The Allied forces captured all German territories, but the allied forces never took over all of the Chinese territories, that too is a fact. Is that a useful fact? Can I use that something that never happened as an argument like you did?


Indeed, I followed the comparison made by other poster, and commented and objective situation: Saint Petersburg is closer to the sea than Peking. That was my initial comment. Let us not begin to walk in circles.
He said Tianjing was a port thus allow for easier transportation, you said so was St Petersberg. You made the comparison without regard to the meaning to that comparison. I pointed out that St Petersberg was not a warm water port, you dismiss it. I don't see why is it that you can make an ''subjective' comment that is irrelevant to the topic at hand, a port that can supply the forces logistically, but when I pointed that out you are like 'oh no but that's not what matters.'
 

mariusj

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,057
Los Angeles
China was stronger in 1937 than in 1900.. that´s the reason because Japan failed (1937 - 1945) but Britain, France and Eight-Powers alliance won against China in China. Not off topic.. because topis is Imperial China and II Reich.... welll... II Reich NEVER lost the capital... 1871 - 1918. In fact... never a Big Imperial City was conquered by their enemies (nor München, nor Strasburg, nor Metz, Frankfurt, Dresde, Hamburg, Hannover etc etc)...So.. yes.... II Reich evidenced to be stronger than China in 1871 - 1918.
What a bullshit argument.

So then does that mean WWII China is stronger than WWII Germany because WWII Germany lost all her territory while China did not?

Or for that matter, does that mean WWI China is stronger than WWI Germany because WWI Germany lost the war?
 

heavenlykaghan

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,558
The Russian invasion of Manchuria in 1900 shows the much greater difficulties involved in invading China Proper at the time. The three provinces of Manchuria combined only had a population of some 14 million in 1900. China proper had a population of some 430 million, meaning that Manchuria was only 1/31 the population of China. Russia sent 135,000 regulars and Cossacks, with a total of around 180,000 to occupy the cities and could not control the country side. This is almost 1/6 of the entire Russian military establishment.
The Chinese regular forces in Manchuria was just over 90,000 in size, smaller than the Russian invasion force and only about 1/10 of the total force of the Qing Empire (and far from the best).
The Russians during the Russo-Japanese war mobilized barely 500,000 soldiers in China and was on the breaking point. Japan's limit was 400,000 soldiers. Occupying the province of Hebei alone for the Russians had they continued to invade China proper might be the limit, and Russia still have its European front to worry about so it can't have these soldiers permanently stationed in China (and the same goes for the Japanese, although it doesn't have to worry about another front at the time).

1900 is also perhaps the weakest point in late Qing history. By 1911, the Qing would increase the size of its New Army to 210,000 (and an almost equal sized force of less well equipped and trained regular force as well as reserves), with equipment and training on par with the most elite Russian and Japanese units and a size not much smaller than what they can field in China.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,620
SoCal
The Russian invasion of Manchuria in 1900 shows the much greater difficulties involved in invading China Proper at the time. The three provinces of Manchuria combined only had a population of some 14 million in 1900. China proper had a population of some 430 million, meaning that Manchuria was only 1/31 the population of China. Russia sent 135,000 regulars and Cossacks, with a total of around 180,000 to occupy the cities and could not control the country side. This is almost 1/6 of the entire Russian military establishment.
The Chinese regular forces in Manchuria was just over 90,000 in size, smaller than the Russian invasion force and only about 1/10 of the total force of the Qing Empire (and far from the best).
The Russians during the Russo-Japanese war mobilized barely 500,000 soldiers in China and was on the breaking point. Japan's limit was 400,000 soldiers. Occupying the province of Hebei alone for the Russians had they continued to invade China proper might be the limit, and Russia still have its European front to worry about so it can't have these soldiers permanently stationed in China (and the same goes for the Japanese, although it doesn't have to worry about another front at the time).

1900 is also perhaps the weakest point in late Qing history. By 1911, the Qing would increase the size of its New Army to 210,000 (and an almost equal sized force of less well equipped and trained regular force as well as reserves), with equipment and training on par with the most elite Russian and Japanese units and a size not much smaller than what they can field in China.
Out of curiosity--just how much Chinese territory do you think that Russia can conquer if it would have made a move on Chinese territory during the warlord era and if WWI would not have occurred? Would Tuva, Mongolia, and Xinjiang have been the limits of realistic Russian conquests in China in such a scenario?
 
Dec 2015
370
NYC
Out of curiosity--just how much Chinese territory do you think that Russia can conquer if it would have made a move on Chinese territory during the warlord era and if WWI would not have occurred? Would Tuva, Mongolia, and Xinjiang have been the limits of realistic Russian conquests in China in such a scenario?
The way I see it, seeing as how Russians had trouble occupying Afghanistan, I honestly don't see how Russians can take any part of Western China. There was also even an event when the Soviets invaded Xinjiang a year before the Japanese invasion of China, where the Russians had a difficult time fighting Chinese forces and ended in a ceasefire.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,620
SoCal
The way I see it, seeing as how Russians had trouble occupying Afghanistan, I honestly don't see how Russians can take any part of Western China. There was also even an event when the Soviets invaded Xinjiang a year before the Japanese invasion of China, where the Russians had a difficult time fighting Chinese forces and ended in a ceasefire.
Are Uyghurs as capable fighters as Afghans are, though? Also, what about Mongolia?
 

heavenlykaghan

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,558
Out of curiosity--just how much Chinese territory do you think that Russia can conquer if it would have made a move on Chinese territory during the warlord era and if WWI would not have occurred? Would Tuva, Mongolia, and Xinjiang have been the limits of realistic Russian conquests in China in such a scenario?
I do think the Russians could have taken large parts of Xinjiang and Outer and Inner Mongolia if they conducted a full scale invasion of China in the warlord era (or the Qing period had the invasion took place in 1900). The Hui Muslim armies were tough, but they lacked the equipment and the numbers. I believe the Russians could take most of Hebei and perhaps parts of Shangdong and Shanxi before being stopped in 1900; after that they will face guerilla resistance and be forced out of Hebei. They might take the western and northern parts of Xinjiang and most of Outer Mongolia as well as the Eastern part of Inner Mongolia. How they might hold it is another story, if we consider international pressure and World War 1 taking place not long afterwards.
If the Russians invaded in 1910s though, they will have a much tougher time as the Chinese armies at the time were much better equipped and trained than they were in 1900 or the 1930s.
The best chance was the 1920s, but given the problems of the USSR at the time, its also unlikely it will attempt an invasion and not face foreign pressure (especially of Japan).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,953
Spain
well since Beijing is the capital, capturing it is different than capturing St Petersburg.

To suggest it was NEVER done because USSR is not China entirely ignores the nature of the conflict that was the Boxer vs the total war that was the Siege of Leningrad.

And further more, if St Petersburg was the capital, how could you suggest that there wouldn't be a landing? On what basis do we hold that opinion?






But you did. You did make the comparison with St. Petersberg.
Tulius is right.. Saint Petersburg was the Capital... and nor Germans in 1914... nor French in 1812.... nor Germans in 1941 (when capital was Moscow) nor Anglo-French in 1854.... took Sain Petersburg.... in fact.... Anglo-French (Baltic Squadron) never planned to take Saint Petersburg....

I don´t know why you don´t want to recognize the FACT... Russian Empire was stronger than Chinese Empire in 19th and 20th Centuries!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist