Sino-British Opium War

In 1840,Qing danasty was invaded by British army,the weak empire began to show it's weakness to the world.after this war,america,france,Russia realised Qing empire was so weak ,just seem like a strong country!
from 1840,ignominious chinese history began!!!last for a hundred of years!
in my opinon,this war had the positive factor to china , it break down the older society system!
what do you think about this war?just post your view!:china::china:

Well, there are almost always positive aspects to any negative incident, just as there tend to be negative side-affects to positive incidents as well. Are you asking about what people have observed about the war militarily, or historically?

It really depends on one's point of view. It can be argued that the Opium War is what led to the rise of communism in the world too. Communism never really went anywhere until the rise of Mao and the communist takeover in China. Communism in China was a result of Western occupation of China. By the time Mao took over, communism wasn't really a philosophy that people embraced but just the only alternative to the colonial West. The idea of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. That's why during the early parts of the Cold War the West had a lot more hatred for China than the Soviet Union. The Cold War made the West rethink their colonial policies because the commies were going around the world telling everyone why would you ally with someone who'd spit on you in their own country. So one can also argue the West's human rights mantra was born from fear of communism winning over the world. So yeah from one perspective the Opium War led to the Western belief in human rights among many other things.

It can be argued that the Opium War is what led to the rise of communism in the world too.

Click to expand...

Russian/Eastern Europe would have been swept up by communist ideology regardless of what happened in China.

You mean contained in Russia/Eastern Europe. The Soviet experience didn't translate well to the world colonized by the West. It was only until China a fellow country plagued by colonialism is when a window opened for communism. Which is why the Cold War started around that time.

Intresting and atleast orginal obinion, but then again rather flawed one, typically "American" one (if you beg my bardon), from point of wiev that only sees the communism as the banner that the "enemies" flew in Soviet Union and in red china.

You fail to see the fact that here in Europe, where Maxist communism was born, the ideology has been long around before any cold war (wich actually started its downfall...)
Communism rose from the barricades of Paris Commune in 1870 and its march to power culminated in 1917 revolution in Russia. After that, the whole ideology got too far from its orginal tracks and its futher expansion died up in China and Cuba, and in both occasion, one can argue untill countless rounds over The intial Soviet role in both occasions.
And that Soviet role, along whit the cold war had nothing to do whit communism any longer, but about hegemonism of two super power.

I'm not really talking about the Euro-centric view of communism. The Cold War went well beyond Europe. It was about who was going to win the world. Europe is not resource rich especially what is needed for an industrial economy. The US, even though it's size, still needed resources that it did not have that the rest of the world did. So who won the hearts and minds of the rest of the world beyond Europe controlled those resources and more importantly won the world. WWII weakened the colonial powers so they feared losing control of their colonies with the communists backing insurgencies against Western colonial rule. The West before WWII was quite the opposite of what the West "stands" for today. And it was because of communism breathing down their backs that the West adopted a human rights platform to counter the tactics of the communists using the spectre of Western colonialism to fuel insurgencies and guerilla wars against them.

I never said that communism started with China. Of course communism was in Europe before the rise of Mao. Communism didn't turn into a force until China fell to the communists. Because it showed that other countries have the potential of turning on the West as well. Which is why China was vilified to scare people into not turning communist.

And I know there are those that look at what I stated in black and white. I don't support communism. I'm just a realist. It's just like what the initial question imposed of this thread. In black and white... can anyone say that the Opium War was a positive for China? If so, then one can say without communism the West would not have cared about human rights and they would still be what they were before WWII.

I never said that communism started with China. Of course communism was in Europe before the rise of Mao. Communism didn't turn into a force until China fell to the communists. Because it showed that other countries have the potential of turning on the West as well. Which is why China was vilified to scare people into not turning communist.

Click to expand...

If you take away the Western colonialism factor, what you have in China at the turn of the century is very similar to Russia at the same time. A large, autocratic and agrarian society marked by a small, distant elite governing a vast population consisting largely of literate, landless peasants. The catalyst here was not the colonization of China by the Western powers but rather the revolution in Russia and the rise of the USSR in the following decades that finally drove a similar revolution to take place in China.

The Qing was nearing their dynastic cycle, with corruption and central incompetency causing national movements to arise all over China. The fact that government was controlled by a small ethnic minority provided further fuel to the fire. Even if you look back to before the Opium War, the Qing was involved in putting down ethnic rebellions as well as revolts led by Chinese secret societies. History has shown that backwards, large nations with a history of despotic government does not transition well into republics or democracies. Communism or some other kind of authoritarian government was the only possible outcome of a modernizing China.

If China had been able to resist Western colonization, I can see two possible outcomes.
1) The nation is thrown into complete chaos at the onset of the Taiping Rebellion, which btw also happened to be an authoritarian movement centered on a collectivist, socialist ideology and complete control of culture/information by the central government.
2) The nation continues on for a while in a way similar to the Ottoman empire before finally falling apart in the early twentieth century.

At the very core, what you still have is the millenia-old dynastic cycle at work as well as the international trend of large, autocratic, multi-ethnic imperialist nations failing to modernize and ultimately falling apart (ie Ottoman Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire).

It's the argument about the chicken and the egg. That's not the angle I'm driving at. If it can be argued that the Opium War was positive for China, is anyone going to believe that communism in China was positive for the world since the West then only embraced human rights as a result of the Cold War to which China was a major player?

So why make an argument that the Opium War was positive for China? No one in their right mind would believe in such a thing. It's such an ugly blight on British history that they outright lie about. The majority of people never heard of the Opium War. And the majority that have heard of it believe the version the British tell which is that they saw how the Chinese were using such an ugly substance to the point of addiction that out of the goodness of their heart they tried to stop it from being used. To where the Chinese who love their opium started a war with the British to save their right to use it. The story the British tell is a grand historic heroic tale of their humanity and concern for their fellow human beings. It's a wonder why the vast majority have never heard about their deed.

It's like when I hear neo-cons make the claim slavery was the best thing to ever happen to African-Americans because today their standard of living is better than those in Africa. Ask yourself why do neocons make and embrace that conclusion? Beijing can make that same claim about Tibet. How many people are going to accept that? The reason for the spin about slavery is because they're rewriting history and erasing the crime thus relieving themselves of any kind of responsibility.

Hi assasinmace (and good to see nice conversation for a change )

I think you hit miss when you claim the Communism came to its power peak after China came as communist.

1) My first counter argument is that The power that imposed the Cold war was not any more "communism" or power of the communism...more a power from guys which also were (at least in sense of name) were communist.

That power that ignited the Cold war was power struggle between the Stalinist Soviet Union and its hegemony rising from its military migth build in WWII...It wasen't any more communist except in the tones of the propaganda, the one that counted was the ammount of missiles, not the books in some agitators backbag

During the Cold war, communism suffered more that it gained. All former great communist frictions in Europe and America begun to shrink. The US communist movment got serious castration and in europe, the large French, Italian and (if compared to its political power and role) Finnish communist parties all got in the cross-fire of supporting Soviet hegemonism and de facto imperialism in otheside, and retaining an ideological credibility among the workers in other.
That lead all of these parties dwiling well before the Soviet brake up and all serious changes for new Revolutions.
All what was left for "communist" or more likely to sympathisers of Soviet hegemony to succeed, were the myriad of pseudo-ideological freedom figthers in third world, often succeeding by merging nationalism and simple mash-potato-anti-imperialism into their cause without too delicate indoctrination of the Actual Marxism, not to mention even Leninism.

The time before the WWII and before the 1917 Revolution was the time that seeded the future map of the Communist block. Comitern with its all reach and rooting was more dreadfull to the capitalist than any arsenal CHina or Soviet Union managed to field, as they knew (and what eventually happened) that They can always build bigger gun to outmatch the soviets thus destroying the hegemony as one usually destroys one.
But when Comitern was intact, the actual molework among the workers, the guys whom the whole concept of communism returns was the one that gave the results. After Stalin destroyed it, the advancing of Communism was left in the hands of few emigrante officers who had to gear up minority dictatorship where ever That hegemony had reached, in non cases after the Cold war started, did Communist ideology rose into force as a pure Marxist working class movment.

2)
My seccond claim comes to the fact that Cold war started becouse of China.
Nope
It started when the Germany's defeat came apparent and that the future europe would have a border between the capitalist and the Soviet Union.

Chinese dupious quality peasant "communism" just happened to reach its peak roughly at the same time, But even if Kuomintang would have won, Soviet Power wouldn't have been demolized in any larger extence. You seem to forget that most of the Cold war, China was as much enemy to Soviet union as was the west, but that didn't stop nor end the cold war...