alternatehistory.com

The prevailing view on this board, and elsewhere nowadays seems to be that holding Hong Kong was a hopeless endeavour. However my recent readings suggest an alternative view to that - the locals and the garrison seemed to feel that although the Mainland could only be held as a delaying action, the 'fortress' proper, that is the Hong Kong Island itself is impregnable.

Losing Hong Kong in just 18 days came as a great surprise to those involved. 2 Btn Royal Scots lost the Shing Mun Redoubt early on, and a retreat from Kowloon was soon ordered. In just 4 days the whole Mainland was lost, but the battle for the Island lasted from 18 Dec to 25 Dec with much less space to trade.

Although the force ratio was not in favour of the defenders, it was the deployment of forces and the fighting spirit of the troops that mattered more in the early stages IMO, comparable to France in a way. The garrison fought with great ferocity and tenacity on the Island proper, much greater than that seen on the Mainland.

I argue that if the garrison could fought with the same efficiency on the Mainland as they had on the Island, and that the original plans for a defense in depth was properly implemented, Hong Kong could have been held, or at least holding on for a much longer time.

Of course, the greater picture must be considered, and (at least the Canadians) considered Hong Kong as the outpost of the main post in Singapore, this would probably require Malaya to be held in the first place. Thus I reckon that this may happen in timelines that UK and the Commonwealth does better (such as A Blunted Sickle and the Whale has Wings among others).
Top