Hong Kong

The Sandman

Banned
I'd find it more interesting to speculate what might have happened if the British had just purchased the New Territories outright rather than the 99-year lease. Does Britain then have the ability to keep Hong Kong indefinitely?
 
Back to the original post, why would the British want to give HK back to the ROC anyway? UK had recognizied PRC almost the first day of its establishment and the Brits certainly had some issues with the "ROC in Taiwan" as the KMT forces interdicted UK shipping travelling to the PRC in the 1950s.

IIRC the UK did recognise the PRC quite soon after 1949.
So that's my question/challenge - how could it be that Britain maintains relations with the ROC as "China" instead of the PROC? In that case, wouldn't they be obligated to deal with the ROC when it comes time for the hand-over, as the political continuation of the China it made the treaty over the New Territories with?
 
Maybe during the run up to WW2 when China was being invaded by Japan it decided it could do without a few small islands and fishing villages and sell the whole HK property in exchange for military supply to help it defend it self.

In the crisis of the Manchurian invasion China might be amicable to selling Britain even more land around the HK region. Perhaps enough to reach HK's water suppy (I have no idea where it comes from so im just guessing).

If the UN were prepared to defend Korea then they would certainly defend Hong Kong. The Berlin Airlift required transport aircraft. Hong Kong is a major port. It is quite possible to supply a large city by sea. It happens all the time. Desalination plants would reduce the amount of water needed, as would evacuation of non-combatants.

An interesting military scenario. I expect that the UN would be pushing for self rule after China had been pushed north of the river.
There are reservoirs on the north side of the harbour in the New Territories (on the mainland) that provide fresh water. But there are also reservoirs on the island, and I could certainly see more being built if the mainland ones were cut-off. There is plenty of rainfall that could be captured. Many cities get by on far less fresh water than could be captured locally.

The main danger would be protection from artillery - the harbour is not that wide.

In any case the treaties were just a legal formalisation of the existing power relations between the Britain and China, Britain took HKong not because any legal or moral right but because they had bigger guns than China. After 1949 in the Far East the roles reversed, so from then on British administration in HKong was dependent of China`s tolerance because the colony was completly dependent of the Mainland to survive. Treaties and negotiations were just a way to handover HKong peacefully before China Take it by Force and they would certainly take it by force if they couldnt have it peacefully because avenging the Opium Wars was a priority for the recovery of Chinese national pride
I'll admit to not knowing the entire history, but I am visiting HK and from what I have learned is that there was no Hong Kong for the British to 'take' when they arrived. There was a small village held by a local pirate - Cheung Po Tsai - on the south side of the Island (which became today's town of Stanley) who came to an accomodation with the Royal Navy. The development of the port of Hong Kong came after that.
So in that case, would it not be more correct to argue that the treaty formalized the arrangement that the British were able to hold the city from Chinese attack, so "let's find a diplomatic solution to keep from fighting".

If I am completely wrong please correct me, but that is what I have learned by visiting here.
 
There are reservoirs on the north side of the harbour in the New Territories (on the mainland) that provide fresh water. But there are also reservoirs on the island, and I could certainly see more being built if the mainland ones were cut-off. There is plenty of rainfall that could be captured. Many cities get by on far less fresh water than could be captured locally.

The main danger would be protection from artillery - the harbour is not that wide.

There were several times that the colonial government had to resort to severe water rationing in the 1950s-1960s as the water supply from the reservoirs is insufficient due to little rain and the demand of water grew rapidly due to rapid increase in population. Then the HK government decided to purchase water from the PRC to secure supply. Today 70% of HK's water come from PRC.

The large reservoirs you mentioned were actually built after the HK government started buying water from PRC. However, there is no way that the HK island can be self- sufficient for water as there is no suitable space that can be developed into reservoirs and the rainfall is not suficient to support the population.

By the way, are you still in HK now? Perhaps we can have a mini- AH.com gathering?:D
 
There were several times that the colonial government had to resort to severe water rationing in the 1950s-1960s as the water supply from the reservoirs is insufficient due to little rain and the demand of water grew rapidly due to rapid increase in population. Then the HK government decided to purchase water from the PRC to secure supply. Today 70% of HK's water come from PRC.

The large reservoirs you mentioned were actually built after the HK government started buying water from PRC. However, there is no way that the HK island can be self- sufficient for water as there is no suitable space that can be developed into reservoirs and the rainfall is not suficient to support the population.

By the way, are you still in HK now? Perhaps we can have a mini- AH.com gathering?:D
Certainly the population that's seen today might not be sustainable, but the development of the city would be very different from the '40's to today- for instance the Kowloon side would not be as largely populated as it would be the 'front line'. Development might be more focused on the south side of the island as well, with the peaks shielding the city from any artillery from the PRC. And for water, I think a lot more could be collected from what falls from the sky, and a lot less used to keep lawns and such green. But given the lushness of the surrounding forests that I see out the window, I can't believe that there's less water available than, say, Malta or the Canaries, which also have to capture all their water.

Here on business for the rest of the week (and the past two), but I'm afraid I don't have any free time in my remaining schedule... thanks for the offer though.
 
Certainly the population that's seen today might not be sustainable, but the development of the city would be very different from the '40's to today- for instance the Kowloon side would not be as largely populated as it would be the 'front line'. Development might be more focused on the south side of the island as well, with the peaks shielding the city from any artillery from the PRC. And for water, I think a lot more could be collected from what falls from the sky, and a lot less used to keep lawns and such green. But given the lushness of the surrounding forests that I see out the window, I can't believe that there's less water available than, say, Malta or the Canaries, which also have to capture all their water.

Here on business for the rest of the week (and the past two), but I'm afraid I don't have any free time in my remaining schedule... thanks for the offer though.

I think you underestimate just how much water people need. Singapore, for example, has an even higher rainfall than Hong Kong and even before WW2 when the population was a million or so, water needed to be pumped in from Malaysia. The problem is even worse with Hong Kong.
 
I think you underestimate just how much water people need. Singapore, for example, has an even higher rainfall than Hong Kong and even before WW2 when the population was a million or so, water needed to be pumped in from Malaysia. The problem is even worse with Hong Kong.
Could very well be, I'm not a hydrological engineer, and certainly not on the immediate area in question. I just think human ingenuity can overcome a lot when it comes to some scarcities.
 
Last edited:
Would a Hong Kong that would not be returned be capable of becoming the economic power house that we know today. Best case scenario HK get access to a permanent water supply and doesn't get invaded. China might still blockade it and keep it from trading with the mainland. The constant threat might discourage investment and keep it from growing.
 
Top