What's the longest Britain could have held onto Hong Kong?

Mitchell Hundred

Later in her life Margret Thatcher commented that one of her regrets was not being able to convince or take the initiative to at least, the Chinese to extend the British lease on Hong Kong.

Realistically could we have seen a world where hong kong was still under British possession? Would China have militarily invaded at some point had the british not agreed to the 1997 hand over?
 
Tallest Skil

Tallest Skil

Banned
The easiest thing to do is just not put a limit on the lease. Boom, keeps it until the present and for the foreseeable future.
 

EternalCynic

Tallest Skil said:
The easiest thing to do is just not put a limit on the lease. Boom, keeps it until the present and for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

It is still very difficult to see China *not* reacting like India did with Goa.

A possibility is if China itself remained weak and divided, unable to assert itself over all (or the vast majority) of its territory. But the territory is simply indefensible from a military perspective.
 

The Dark Master

EternalCynic said:
It is still very difficult to see China *not* reacting like India did with Goa.
Click to expand...

1 - Portugal (especially by the XXth Century) is not Britain.

2 - IIRC, Goa also had some religious issues tied into the politics. The British Raj had left many Hindus with a very bitter (and completely justifiable) resentment of Christian missionaries, and Portugal had long used Goa as a base for Catholic proselytism. To Hindu Indians, Goa was not merely a tiny scrap of territory that was rightly theirs, it was also a continuing remnant of what was perceived as the attempt of Europeans to destroy Indian culture and religion. China, while surely resentful over the past defeat that Hong Kong represents, doesn't really have a motivation that volatile to justify retaking Hong Kong by force.

3 - Goa also had substantial native resistance against Portuguese rule. I could be wrong, but I do not believe there was any significant native pressure to reunite HK with China proper.

Overall, if the lease was extended somehow (either when originally negotiated, or later down the line) I see no reason why Britain couldn't keep Hong Kong. China may not like it, but if Britain were prepared to fight over the matter (most likely with American support, especially if this is against a communist China) then I doubt China would go to war over HK, especially considering that they were unwilling to defy the US to retake Taiwan, which is of far greater significance.
 

Namayan

Mitchell Hundred said:
Later in her life Margret Thatcher commented that one of her regrets was not being able to convince or take the initiative to at least, the Chinese to extend the British lease on Hong Kong.

Realistically could we have seen a world where hong kong was still under British possession? Would China have militarily invaded at some point had the british not agreed to the 1997 hand over?
Click to expand...

This is 1997. China was not yet of 2014 strength levels. Their economy is still subpar. Their military is underfunded compared to UK. Usa is still the hyper power. While China is not yet a superpower but a great power still weaker than the UK.

But, yes china can In theory invade Hong Kong in 1997 otl but with very large consequences. No western invesments that fueled them this century, larger casualties. I can only imagine what usa will do with their supremacy during that decade.
 

EternalCynic

The Dark Master said:
Overall, if the lease was extended somehow (either when originally negotiated, or later down the line) I see no reason why Britain couldn't keep Hong Kong. China may not like it, but if Britain were prepared to fight over the matter (most likely with American support, especially if this is against a communist China) then I doubt China would go to war over HK, especially considering that they were unwilling to defy the US to retake Taiwan, which is of far greater significance.
Click to expand...

Britain had already reduced its military presence in Hong Kong to token levels by the 1960s, when sheer madness was raging across the border, and indeed when Red Guards were shooting at Ghurkas. This meant they ultimately were not willing to fight for it. And, the lessons from Korea indicated it is useless to try to fight China in a continental war. Which Hong Kong is part of.

Namayan said:
This is 1997. China was not yet of 2014 strength levels. Their economy is still subpar. Their military is underfunded compared to UK. Usa is still the hyper power. While China is not yet a superpower but a great power still weaker than the UK.
Click to expand...
Alas, Britain simply cannot ignore 1997 indefinitely. As early as the late 1970s, the government had trouble financing the Mass Transit Railway system and public housing projects due to banks' concerns about the amortization period. By the early 1980s, banks were unwilling to extend simple housing mortgages due to uncertainty of its legal status. IOTL, the protracted negotiations almost caused the city's stock market, real estate, and currency to crash. So China cold have chosen to do nothing, and left Britain with a debt-ridden basketcase which will inevitably anger plenty of people in the City of London. And that doesn't exclude the food, power, and water supplies, which China had no obligation to continue supplying.

How will Margaret Thatcher pay for that expensive bill? Bottle her own hot air and privatize it?

But, yes china can In theory invade Hong Kong in 1997 otl but with very large consequences. No western invesments that fueled them this century, larger casualties. I can only imagine what usa will do with their supremacy during that decade.
Click to expand...
The very large consequences will lay solely at the hands of Britain. No one else.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Britain was no longer a power by 1997 and China could take Hong Kong at her leisure. The British would never have had the stomach for a war so distant and over such a pathetic cause. The South Atlantic War had taught her how low she had sunk
 
Alternate History Geek

Alternate History Geek

EternalCynic said:
Britain had already reduced its military presence in Hong Kong to token levels by the 1960s, when sheer madness was raging across the border, and indeed when Red Guards were shooting at Ghurkas. This meant they ultimately were not willing to fight for it. And, the lessons from Korea indicated it is useless to try to fight China in a continental war. Which Hong Kong is part of.
Click to expand...

Only if you don't have the spine to go beyond conventional weaponry. A few tacnukes would turn the tables right around.
 
Yuelang

Yuelang

Banned
Have Jiang Qing comes to power after Chairman Mao's death

watch as China balkanize themselves and fall again into warlord states with nukes

watch as Soviet backed North Korea, Mongolia, and (North) Vietnam chip on Chinese territories

watch as US backed Taiwan to do the reconquest of the mainland

in this case of unknown future, British and Portuguese will held on Hong-Kong and Macau, as long as Taiwan-based ROC finally reunite China and ask about them... but we can sure it won't happen again in a century at least
 

sarahz

Mitchell Hundred said:
Later in her life Margret Thatcher commented that one of her regrets was not being able to convince or take the initiative to at least, the Chinese to extend the British lease on Hong Kong.

Realistically could we have seen a world where hong kong was still under British possession? Would China have militarily invaded at some point had the british not agreed to the 1997 hand over?
Click to expand...

she probabbly lied. I met a number of chinese officials in the 1990's some at a quite senior level. They were absolutely clear that she never once tried to extend the lease and was extremely eager to curry favour with the Chinese.
Their view, fairly or not, was this was partly a desire to suck up to them, but was also motivated by racism.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Namayan said:
This is 1997. China was not yet of 2014 strength levels. Their economy is still subpar. Their military is underfunded compared to UK. Usa is still the hyper power. While China is not yet a superpower but a great power still weaker than the UK.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter, China has being in the position to take HK since the 1950s because 1) The British has either low amount or token amount of forces there and 2) It's geographically indefensible.

But, yes china can In theory invade Hong Kong in 1997 otl but with very large consequences. No western invesments that fueled them this century, larger casualties. I can only imagine what usa will do with their supremacy during that decade.
Click to expand...
Nobody cares enough about HK (not even the British) except maybe the PRC to disrupt economic ties because of it. The reason why the British were even worried about HK handover was because it wanted to (lol) keep refugees from HK from going to Britain.
 
Last edited:

RousseauX

Donor
The Dark Master said:
Overall, if the lease was extended somehow (either when originally negotiated, or later down the line) I see no reason why Britain couldn't keep Hong Kong. China may not like it, but if Britain were prepared to fight over the matter (most likely with American support, especially if this is against a communist China) then I doubt China would go to war over HK, especially considering that they were unwilling to defy the US to retake Taiwan, which is of far greater significance.
Click to expand...

The British had token forces in Hong Kong and more importantly, there isn't a 90 mile channel stopping the PLA from moving in whenever they feel like.

Even in the 1950s the British took 4 weeks to assemble a force to invade Egypt, and the morning that the British starts talking about "fight over the matter", PLA tanks are already in HK by that afternoon. The reason why the Chinese negotiated over HK was because they wanted its commercial value which an occupation would destroy.

3 - Goa also had substantial native resistance against Portuguese rule. I could be wrong, but I do not believe there was any significant native pressure to reunite HK with China proper.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_1967_Leftist_riots
 
Last edited:

RousseauX

Donor
Alternate History Geek said:
Only if you don't have the spine to go beyond conventional weaponry. A few tacnukes would turn the tables right around.
Click to expand...

So the UK, in the late 80s/90s, will actually fight a nuclear war against the PRC (who in turn, has enough nukes delivery capacity to destroy whatever military forces the UK has in the area if they wanted to) to keep Hong Kong.

Ok, not even Margaret Thatcher is gonna do that
 

ScottM

Have Frederick Lugard's proposal for the return of Weihaiwei back to the Chinese in return for the ceding of the rented New Territories in perpetuity.

It was not received well in Whitehall for some reason in OTL, but if it was then you have your desired result.

This is what I used for my TL.
 

RousseauX

Donor
ScottM said:
Have Frederick Lugard's proposal for the return of Weihaiwei back to the Chinese in return for the ceding of the rented New Territories in perpetuity.

It was not received well in Whitehall for some reason in OTL, but if it was then you have your desired result.

This is what I used for my TL.
Click to expand...

The lease doesn't matter, because either way the PRC can at any point

1) make the territory unviable by cutting off the food/water
2) send in the tanks, the whole is taken in literally an afternoon.

The net result of a perpetual lease is that the 80s negotiations take a different tone, maybe with a few more concessions but the same results.
 

The Dark Master

RousseauX said:
The British had token forces in Hong Kong and more importantly, there isn't a 90 mile channel stopping the PLA from moving in whenever they feel like.

Even in the 1950s the British took 4 weeks to assemble a force to invade Egypt, and the morning that the British starts talking about "fight over the matter", PLA tanks are already in HK by that afternoon. The reason why the Chinese negotiated over HK was because they wanted its commercial value which an occupation would destroy.
Click to expand...

Well, that's why I said IF. Obviously, IOTL, Britain did not think Hong Kong was worth fighting for, but in an alternate timeline, they may have felt differently (of course that may be in a timeline where China is much weaker or never fully re-unifies)

RousseauX said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_1967_Leftist_riots
Click to expand...

Did not know about that. Not sure if that's quite on the scale of the native resistance in Goa (which I believe was 60% hindu at the time India retook it) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_liberation_movement, but still interesting to consider. Thanks.
 

sarahz

RousseauX said:
The British had token forces in Hong Kong and more importantly, there isn't a 90 mile channel stopping the PLA from moving in whenever they feel like.

Even in the 1950s the British took 4 weeks to assemble a force to invade Egypt, and the morning that the British starts talking about "fight over the matter", PLA tanks are already in HK by that afternoon. The reason why the Chinese negotiated over HK was because they wanted its commercial value which an occupation would destroy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_1967_Leftist_riots
Click to expand...

actually it may have had something at least to do with trying to persuade Taiwan that there could be a peaceful path to reunification and that 2 systems one country could work
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top