How could the Japanese realisticaly loose at Hong Kong in 1941?

Could the British have been able to reinforce through their Pacific and Indian Ocean colonies, or was Hong Kong a lost cause?
 
Could the British have been able to reinforce through their Pacific and Indian Ocean colonies, or was Hong Kong a lost cause?

Hong Kong was impossible to defend. There was no one that thought it was remotely possible. At least with Singapore there was a chance. Churchill sent just enough men there to put up a token defense for the prestige of the empire. They could have put up a better fight with more artillery, but that would just mean more equipment end up captured.
 
The problem is quite similar to both Singapore and Hong Kong. Both are too small to be defended against an attack themselves, but as long as the land, sea and air around the bases is in friendly hands (or at least contested) it can be done. Of course, for Hong Kong, the hope ended when they started to share a land border with Japanese army.
 
Just as well they still didn’t have Wei Hai Wei. I don’t think any pre war plans British or American thought Singapore would fall.
 
I believe the estimate was that the gindrinkers line needed 3 divisions to defend, and this position needed to be held to keep artillery more or less out of range of the harbour, and to defend the reservoirs (there would still be a water problem). Another division or so might be needed to protect against amphibious attack. Therefore, a minimum of 4 divisions are the requirement for a sustained siege. Even then it couldn't hold out long term without being reinforced, it's Malta with a land border against a stronger and more determined enemy.

Assuming 4 well equipped and trained divisions are deployed, more Japanese forces would be drawn from elsewhere, but probably mostly from China rather than the Southern operation. The only way Hong Kong could then be held is if Britain can deploy sufficient air and naval forces to dominate the South China Sea. This is because Hong Kong will need resupplying and troop replacements/reinforcements. Exactly the same arguments apply against a relief convoy to Hong Kong as applied to one to the Philippines. So in addition to the 4 extra divisions an extra naval force equivalent to roughly the prewar RN or USN (and probably RAF) has to be available as the Japanese will definitely fight any relief attempt (one big battle on ground of their choosing: they'd be ecstatic). So essentially it requires British defence spending in the interwar period to double and other countries not to respond to this higher defence spending.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Could the British have been able to reinforce through their Pacific and Indian Ocean colonies, or was Hong Kong a lost cause?

By Britain? No, absolutely not.

Hong Kong theoretically could have been relieved during the Japanese campaign…

...by China.

Even that would likely require earlier PoDs to make the Chinese forces better positioned and more capable of helping.

The strategic circumstances of OTL 1940-1941 make it impossible for Britain to meaningfully reinforce Hong Kong.

However, I still find this an interesting question.

Let’s consider the issue in two drastically different scenarios, these *do* require Japan to be even crazier than OTL, but help us to consider the question in a new way:

What if the Anglo-Japanese crisis over the Tianjin incident escalates to Anglo-Japanese War by summer 1939?

I would assume Japan's first targets would be any and every British enclave along the China Coast, treaty ports in China and Hong Kong alike.

Could the British reinforce Hong Kong (or indeed any of its other China enclaves) in time to hold back the Japanese? I don't know, but maybe. Maybe there could be a chance for successful Chinese-British coalition operations in South China including Hong Kong in this 1939 scenario.

Or, what if in the summer or fall of 1941 the Japanese invaded the Soviet Union instead of striking south?
Hong Kong will be left alone if Japan is still hoping for the British to be neutral in the Soviet-Japanese War.

And in a Soviet-Japanese war, British forces in Hong Kong, China and the Far East in general would be too small to do serious damage to the Japanese at the outset. So the British may stay neutral for awhile if given a choice by the Japanese.

But the British may want to reinforce, and without Singapore and Malaya under attack, may be able to trickle more stuff to the garrison. And if they plan to declare war on the Japanese they would reinforce.

If the Soviet-Japanese war begins, it would force a cutback in Japanese offensive operations in China proper, and would suck in more and more of the Japanese ground power and air power in China proper over the ensuing weeks and months.

That sets conditions for a potential effective defense of Hong Kong by the British, relief of Hong Kong by the Chinese, or some effective Sino-British coalition ops in China in general.

 
Last edited:
"For years before the war everyone with knowledge of Far Eastern conditions knew that our position in Hong Kong was untenable and that we should lose it as soon as a major war started. This knowledge, however, was intolerable, and government after government continued to cling to Hong Kong instead of giving it back to the Chinese. Fresh troops were even pushed into it, with the certainty that they would be uselessly taken prisoner, a few weeks before the Japanese attack began. The war came, and Hong Kong promptly fell — as everyone had known all along that it would do."--George Orwell http://orwell.ru/library/articles/nose/english/e_nose
 
What if the Anglo-Japanese crisis over the Tianjin incident escalates to Anglo-Japanese War by summer 1939?
Go to war with Japan over the Tientsin Incident in 1939, after being snubbed by the US (When GB sought US support, the US was meh, we wont back European Imperialists in Asia against Japan.), cut a deal with the Russians for them to support Poland against Germany in return for a free hand in Manchuria and GB to provide the Naval Power in a combined Anglo-Russian effort against Japan. No war in Europe and Japan out the Asian mainland by 1943 - The Main Fleet to Singapore is home in time for tea and medals. Hoorah!
 
The original plan was not to reinforce Hong Kong - it under the circumstances, should not be defended it was a strategically pointless - and this was known by everyone involved in the decision making.

They should have been more hard headed and treated HK like they treated the Sudan in 1940 by withdrawing the limited forces in the face of a large Italian army (much to Churchills disgust) - it like the Sudan was indefensible and they should have drawn down all forces to the bear minimum and relocated them to Malaya which had a far better chance of being held.

Just enough soldiers even a Militia to ensure that any attempt to capture the Colony must be made using force and only then for them really to destroy the facilities and fixed guns etc to deny them to the enemy etc.

The MTB flotilla and Insect gunboats would have been far more useful at Kota Bharu on the East Malaya Coast rather than being wasted in HK Harbour and the 4 Battalions + the 2 Canadian Battalions along with both Brigade HQs and Engineers/Artillerymen would also have been better used in Malaya whose Garrison lacked trained personnel.

Remember the maxim "In trying to defend everything he defended nothing" Frederick the Great Of Prussia
 
You could call it a Japanese loss, if some of the initial landings on Hong Kong Island had been repulsed. By concentrating his forces Maltby might have pulled off a miracle and smashed a couple of the landings, say the Japanese 230th Regt landing of 2 battalions at North Point, and the 228th Regt 2 battalion landings at Braemar Point. Realistically we couldn't hope they would have repulsed all three Regiments, and the 229th at Aldrich Bay would have to be considered a successful landing, but the loss of four battalions makes taking the island a much bigger ask, and although ultimately Hong Kong would fall, the knock on repercussions would be a major blow for Japan. the 38th Infantry Division went on to invade Java as part of the 16th Army, now with the 4 battalions written off, and the other five having taken higher casualties due to the need to work harder for the victory, I doubt this division could participate in the campaign.

My suggestion as to its replacement would be the recently raised 56th Infantry Division, earmarked for the Malayan Campaign with the 25th Army, but not taken of needed. This of course knocks on as to who goes to Burma instead of the 56th, now employed in Java, and if it follows the historical path of the 38th Division, Rabaul and Guadalcanal.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
"For years before the war everyone with knowledge of Far Eastern conditions knew that our position in Hong Kong was untenable and that we should lose it as soon as a major war started. This knowledge, however, was intolerable, and government after government continued to cling to Hong Kong instead of giving it back to the Chinese. Fresh troops were even pushed into it, with the certainty that they would be uselessly taken prisoner, a few weeks before the Japanese attack began. The war came, and Hong Kong promptly fell — as everyone had known all along that it would do."--George Orwell http://orwell.ru/library/articles/nose/english/e_nose

Well, Britain got to enjoy a postwar Hong Kong miracle for 52 years after the war. Wouldn't have happened if they'd just given it to the Chinese in the interwar.
 
Hong Kong couldn't possibly have been held by the British army. Dad was in the Royal Artillery there in the Korean War. The estimate for how long they could hold out against the Chinese People's Army was: the weekend. Too isolated in 1941 and too surrounded by the Japanese on land, sea and air.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Under OTL conditions?

Short of literal divine intervention like a meteor strike on the IJA marshaling area it can't be done. The post was indefensible against a serious assault for more than a month, maybe six weeks in PERFECT conditions. The British Colonial forces were (this should sound familiar) under-armed, had no heavy anti-tank weapons to speak of, of uneven quality in the areas of training and combat experience, and over half the total defenders were locally raised militia. Worse, they had not defensive fighter cover, and no hope of resupply or relief. There was no way to trade space for time or to build strong defenses.

The IJA was virtually 100% combat veterans, who had been fighting together for over two years, well, even lavishly (for the IJA) equipped and led by some very good officers, including Lt. Gen Takashi Sakai (who, BTW, was broken and involuntarily retired in early 1943 because it took 18 days, rather than the allocated 10 days, to take the position). The Japanese AAF also had three squadrons of light bombers available, along with a half squadron of Ki-44 fighters.

That the defenders managed to last 18 days was, actually a better performance than might have been expected.

Now if you change the scenario enough, then they can make a game of it. However, any scenario that frees up enough British regular forces to mount a successful defense will also likely eliminate the conditions that made the Japanese think they could attack the Southern Resource Area in the first place.
 
Well, Britain got to enjoy a postwar Hong Kong miracle for 52 years after the war. Wouldn't have happened if they'd just given it to the Chinese in the interwar.

I don 't think anyone in the 1940's anticipated the Hong Kong boom. And if you had told people "(1) there will be a strong China, (2) It will be Communist, (3) it will easily be able to take Hong Kong any time it wants to, but (4) It will leave it alone for a half century" you would be thought crazy. Not that (1) (2) and (3) weren't plausible, but if they came true, (4) would certainly seem unlikely....
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I don 't think anyone in the 1940's anticipated the Hong Kong boom. And if you had told people "(1) there will be a strong China, (2) It will be Communist, (3) it will easily be able to take Hong Kong any time it wants to, but (4) It will leave it alone for a half century" you would be thought crazy. Not that (1) (2) and (3) weren't plausible, but if they came true, (4) would certainly seem unlikely....

Oh agreed - my argument is dependent on hindsight. However Britain was not in the business of yielding its own territory without a fight to weak, undeveloped countries at the time. Also, Hong Kong made for an awesome thorn in Japans side and transshipment point for aid to the KMT for as long as the Japanese tolerated British rule there. Had it been handed back to China prewar it would have been lost to Japanese withCanton.
 
Oh agreed - my argument is dependent on hindsight. However Britain was not in the business of yielding its own territory without a fight to weak, undeveloped countries at the time. Also, Hong Kong made for an awesome thorn in Japans side and transshipment point for aid to the KMT for as long as the Japanese tolerated British rule there. Had it been handed back to China prewar it would have been lost to Japanese withCanton.

I don't see how aid to the KMT could be shipped inland from Hong Kong. When did the Japanese Army fully surround the Colony?
 
You could call it a Japanese loss, if some of the initial landings on Hong Kong Island had been repulsed. By concentrating his forces Maltby might have pulled off a miracle and smashed a couple of the landings, say the Japanese 230th Regt landing of 2 battalions at North Point, and the 228th Regt 2 battalion landings at Braemar Point. Realistically we couldn't hope they would have repulsed all three Regiments, and the 229th at Aldrich Bay would have to be considered a successful landing, but the loss of four battalions makes taking the island a much bigger ask, and although ultimately Hong Kong would fall, the knock on repercussions would be a major blow for Japan. the 38th Infantry Division went on to invade Java as part of the 16th Army, now with the 4 battalions written off, and the other five having taken higher casualties due to the need to work harder for the victory, I doubt this division could participate in the campaign.

My suggestion as to its replacement would be the recently raised 56th Infantry Division, earmarked for the Malayan Campaign with the 25th Army, but not taken of needed. This of course knocks on as to who goes to Burma instead of the 56th, now employed in Java, and if it follows the historical path of the 38th Division, Rabaul and Guadalcanal.

That sounds like a possible POD there Fatboy Coxy! Three or four books of reading, some time, and an epic last stand. Unfortunately accompanied by the obligatory IJA atrocities, but that is the history from those days.
 
That sounds like a possible POD there Fatboy Coxy! Three or four books of reading, some time, and an epic last stand. Unfortunately accompanied by the obligatory IJA atrocities, but that is the history from those days.


I think it would have been much better if those troops and assets could have been redeployed to Burma. They may not have prevented the loss of Burma but they would have delayed it and likely have prevented the OTL rout. This may have avoided the resulting panic in India that contributed to the Bengal Famine. Also the surviving soldiers fighting in Burma could have retreated instead of being trapped and captured.

Hong Kong was hopeless. The only sensible thing to do in OTL would have been to evacuate as many troops as possible shortly before the Pacific War started instead of the futile and wasteful reinforcement with Canadian troops. When the war started declare an open city to hopefully avoid pointless damage and civilian deaths from the IJA.
 
I think it would have been much better if those troops and assets could have been redeployed to Burma. They may not have prevented the loss of Burma but they would have delayed it and likely have prevented the OTL rout. This may have avoided the resulting panic in India that contributed to the Bengal Famine. Also the surviving soldiers fighting in Burma could have retreated instead of being trapped and captured.

Hong Kong was hopeless. The only sensible thing to do in OTL would have been to evacuate as many troops as possible shortly before the Pacific War started instead of the futile and wasteful reinforcement with Canadian troops. When the war started declare an open city to hopefully avoid pointless damage and civilian deaths from the IJA.

I think there's more of an argument as to a deployment to Malaya being a success than Burma. But both scenarios are dependant on when they are deployed, the earlier the better. And there is a significant naval presence in Hong Kong which also could have been redeployed, again Malaya/Singapore would have offered better options for success in my opinion.

Interesting comments about how successful Hong Kong was after the war, with Britain reoccupying the colony. A concern of Churchills was that there had to be a considerable demonstration of desire to defend the Colony, to argue the right to reclaim it after winning the was, in short a heavy butchers bill was desirable. I do look at Maltby's desire to continue resistance when all was practically lost as a possible extension of Churchills thoughts on this. And clearly it wasn't something the Canadians had signed up to given the fallout following the loss of the colony.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I don't see how aid to the KMT could be shipped inland from Hong Kong. When did the Japanese Army fully surround the Colony?

Surprising how it was done, but largely transhipped by sea. Apparently, Japanese blockade and policing of waterways against small and medium watercraft was far from airtight.

but I recommend checking this book out: Clash of Empires in South China: The Allied Nations' Proxy War with Japan, 1935-1941
 
Top