British retain Hong Kong

Hyperion

Banned
Simple question. Suppose that, for whatever reason, Britain is able to retain possession of Hong Kong, up to the present day.

Pick any reason you want for this occuring. Better defense during WW2, even if ultimately futile. Gaining the whole territory during its initial taking, etc.

How does this effect the region, and the status of Britain on the world stage?
 
Britain had Hong Kong on a lease from China. The only way they would keep it is if they offer to buy it. Post WW2 they are too poor, so it would have to be either before WW1 or during the interbellum.
 
Have there be no lease on Hong Kong.

Then, the British can handle Hong Kong and China the way they do Gibraltar with Spain. When the country that formally had it asks for it back, hold a referendum for the UN to see. If the inhabitants turn down re-unification, Britain can keep it.

Considering the high standard of living and wanting to live in a democracy rather than a communist state, I can't imagine Hong Kongers wanting to be part of China. Thus, the territory will remain a British colony indefinitely.

As for Britain on the world stage, it is now more important. It would still pick the governor for one of the biggest financial centers in the world.
 
Last edited:
Considering the high standard of living and wanting to live in a democracy rather than a communist state, I can't imagine Hong Kongers wanting to be part of China. Thus, the territory will remain a British colony indefinitely.

You're right than Hongkongers generally wouldn't want to be part of China but describing Hong Kong as a democracy is a bit far fetched seeing as the average Hong Konger didn't have that much representation IIRC- much of the executive and legislature was appointed rather than elected.
 
You're right than Hongkongers generally wouldn't want to be part of China but describing Hong Kong as a democracy is a bit far fetched seeing as the average Hong Konger didn't have that much representation IIRC- much of the executive and legislature was appointed rather than elected.

As I recall you're right on with the caveat that the local Chinese truly did run the place (not that they were elected, obviously), for all that the UK was technically in charge. Post-war Britain really should have figured out some way to handle Malta/Hong Kong/the Falklands/etc….

Still, better the UK than China.
 
My Chinese History prof said that China's re-acquisition of Hong Kong was due almost entirely to national pride. Apparently the PRC was more than happy with the status quo and with HK being British however when Thatcher attempted to renegotiate she made the mistake of referring to the Treaty of Nanjing as "fair" (the Chinese don't see it that way) which seriously PO'ed Deng Xiaopeng who subsequently demanded the UK hand China over.

If Thatcher was a bit more astute she could have renegotiated HK's lease on the Kowloon peninsula and kept HK British in perpetuity.
 
Britain had Hong Kong on a lease from China. The only way they would keep it is if they offer to buy it. Post WW2 they are too poor, so it would have to be either before WW1 or during the interbellum.

Only the new territories. HK was 100% British.
 
This isn't a hard "challenge". Remember 'red' China wanted international recognition early on and Britain could have traded the New Territories being ceded in perpituity in exchange for recognition.
 
Compromise...

Suppose the lease expires at a time China doesn't want to (or can't) take on Britian militarily. Britian recognises Nationalist China as the legitimate government of China...so starts to make preparations to hand it over to the government in Taipie (sp?)

Naturally, Beijing has a fit--especially when Britain states, "It would be irresponsible to hand ver the territory without seeing to it that the owners can protect it," and plans to fortify it..or Taiwan invites the British to keep a military presence there.

Ultimately, a compromise is reached...Red China can't abide Hong Kong going to Nationalist China, and Nationalist China might think they're better off without such an imeadiately available flashpoint with the usurpers. When everything settles out, it's decided that the status quo--either another century lease, or an outright transfer, is the best way to prevent an ugly situation.
 
With a different President from Nixon one could see the UK getting the New Territories in exchange for backing the ChiComms on their bid to replace the Republic of China on the Security Council.

If the UK did so the USSR and possibly the French would back them, and a smart US President might seize on it as a way to open up Communist China (without the ability to pull a Nixon on the situation).
 
Hong Kong is dependent upon China for water, IIRC. The Chinese just turn off any and all utility connections and let it wither on the vine. The British wouldn't be able to afford to support the entire population. All items and food stuffs will have to be brought in by sea or air.
 
Maybe have a still divided China, or one that never expands/recovers/builds post war. Or perhaps some mechanism to renegotiate the lease.
 
The important thing to remember: Britain has to WANT to keep Hong Kong.
To have this you need the population to overwhelmingly make it clear they're not Chinese but British and have someone less callous than Thatcher in power who will listen to them.
 
The important thing to remember: Britain has to WANT to keep Hong Kong.

To have this you need the population to overwhelmingly make it clear they're not Chinese but British and have someone less callous than Thatcher in power who will listen to them.

Or money. Does anyone have the figures on what Hong Kong made the UK as a colony? I know they taxed them lightly, but there should be other fees to make that up.


As for the population they were quite clear that they were Chinese, due to British immigration laws (IIRC) but the vast majority of them would far prefer British rule to the ChiComs—I'm quite sure none expected Hong Kong to be a free city in the Singapore mold, as interesting as that be.
 
Or money. Does anyone have the figures on what Hong Kong made the UK as a colony? I know they taxed them lightly, but there should be other fees to make that up.
That kind of thinking doesn't work anymore.
You are not going to get Britain to about face on 30 years of 'Imperialism is bad' just so they can exploit some people on the far side of the planet.
 

NomadicSky

Banned
Britain had Hong Kong on a lease from China. The only way they would keep it is if they offer to buy it. Post WW2 they are too poor, so it would have to be either before WW1 or during the interbellum.


Not all of it they didn't.

Legally the British could have kept about half of it, they leased an area known as the "new territories".
 
That kind of thinking doesn't work anymore.
You are not going to get Britain to about face on 30 years of 'Imperialism is bad' just so they can exploit some people on the far side of the planet.

And the alternatives are the ChiComs exploiting them worse, or a incredibly unlikely to last Free City.

Just because the British are usually idiots in this manner doesn't mean they always are.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Hong Kong is dependent upon China for water, IIRC. The Chinese just turn off any and all utility connections and let it wither on the vine. The British wouldn't be able to afford to support the entire population. All items and food stuffs will have to be brought in by sea or air.

Hong Kong Island (permanently British) was dependent on the New Territories (British for 99 years) for water and power. Neither was dependent upon China. ad the British kept the New Territories permanently, the entire colony was viable.

In the Rule Britannia TL, the British assist China in its struggles against Japan and, in exchange, the New Territories are permanently ceded to Britain.
 
Top