If China became a repressive and brutal Communist hermit state like North Korea, what would happen to HK? Would Britain defend HK at all costs, even with nukes?
If China was a hermit state like North Korea, what happens to Hong Kong?
- Thread starter Berkeley2017
- Start date
Even if China was still a poor and isolated country, there would be nothing the United Kingdom could do short of fighting a nuclear war with China. (And even then, would it win? Would it want to?)
My personal sense, based on how even after the Tiananmen Square massacre the United Kingdom kept in place a nationality law that denied Hong Kongers full citizenship rights including the right of residency in the United Kingdom, is that the United Kingdom would cut its losses and abandon Hong Kongers. In OTL, even when there seemed to be a significant risk of Hong Kongers' freedoms being compromised by the People's Republic, even when countries around the world were competing to attract Hong Kong immigrants, the United Kingdom opted to do whatever it could to keep Hong Kongers out. The contrast with the citizenship extended to the people of the Falklands and Gibraltar, similar enclaves similarly contested by mainland powers, is noteworthy.
(We can speculate about British motivations in doing so. How are Hong Kongers different from Falklanders and Gibraltarians? But I digress.)
If the United Kingdom cares about Hong Kongers so little, what are the chances of the United Kingdom actually going to war over the enclave? Aden comes to mind as another example of a similar port city that the UK abandoned without caring for its inhabitants, so there are precedents, too.
My personal sense, based on how even after the Tiananmen Square massacre the United Kingdom kept in place a nationality law that denied Hong Kongers full citizenship rights including the right of residency in the United Kingdom, is that the United Kingdom would cut its losses and abandon Hong Kongers. In OTL, even when there seemed to be a significant risk of Hong Kongers' freedoms being compromised by the People's Republic, even when countries around the world were competing to attract Hong Kong immigrants, the United Kingdom opted to do whatever it could to keep Hong Kongers out. The contrast with the citizenship extended to the people of the Falklands and Gibraltar, similar enclaves similarly contested by mainland powers, is noteworthy.
(We can speculate about British motivations in doing so. How are Hong Kongers different from Falklanders and Gibraltarians? But I digress.)
If the United Kingdom cares about Hong Kongers so little, what are the chances of the United Kingdom actually going to war over the enclave? Aden comes to mind as another example of a similar port city that the UK abandoned without caring for its inhabitants, so there are precedents, too.
First of all, North Korea isn't a "hermit state," it has diplomatic relations with most of the world's countries and a growing number of foreign tourists visiting.
To answer the question, say the Gang of Four take over after Mao's death. I see no reason why they would do anything to Hong Kong pre-97. If the UK tried to keep Hong Kong after that, that's a different story but ultimately the UK isn't going to start a war with a nuclear state over Hong Kong.
Last edited:
Well if Britain won't take them in, perhaps Taiwan or the US would? For all its faults, OTL China isn't a place where millions of people are starving to death and three generations of family members are sent to camps for minor transgressions, so did the drive to leave would be much lower OTL than TTL. How many HKers can realistically get away before 1997?
OTL North Korea isn't a place where millions of people are starving to death either, there certainly is malnourishment especially in the countryside but there hasn't been mass famine since the 90s. This article here (written by a guy who wrote a book calling NK a "Failed Stalinist Utopia" so he isn't exactly pro North) talks about this: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/03/n-korea-myth-starvation-2014319124439924471.html
The Hong Kong diaspora was huge and international, Wikipedia claiming a half-million Canadians of Hong Kong descent and two hundred thousand people born in Hong Kong. I would imagine that Canada might be an even bigger destination, as would the United States and Australia. Taiwan too, I bet.
Past a certain point, if China looks profoundly untrustworthy, I would expect that everyone who could leave would, for whatever destination they might find. European countries may become destinations, as might Latin America and Southeast Asia. Talented people with money may be able to find a welcome.
It does depend on how much the PRC wants Hong Kong, if they are isolated, then having a foreign outpost like Hong Kong could be useful to handle what little international traffic they need to have.
1997 only technically requires the return of the New Territories.
1997 only technically requires the return of the New Territories.
Barry Bull
Donor
The problem is, how does the TTL China arrived at that point? What's the POD? How does that affect Chinese R&D and the industrial development?
As for the nuclear arms race, the OTL Chins is usually considered as at parity with UK and France in terms of no. of nuclear warheads, i.e. about 300.
In OTL, China first operationally deployed DF-5 ICBM that has the range to hit the British Isles in 1981. The max no. ever deployed is estimated at 20. DF-5 remained a single warhead weapon at least until 2000s.
Also, China has never been observed to deploy a tac nuke despite having tested such weapons. Q-5Jia fighter bomber and H-6A bomber are two types of strike aircraft in PLAAF service that can carry tac nukes, but Q-5Jis never entered production and H-6A served as a strategic bomber.
OTOH, UK actually has an advantage in terms of nuclear weapons that last at least till the OTL 1990s. UK had more warhead than the PRC at the time. Some of the Polaris have been upgraded with Chevaline that was one of the best anti-ABM system at that time. Also, the ASW capacity of PLAN in the 1980s and 1990s is poor and a UK Polaris Sub is likely to be able to creep into launch range undetected. Polaris was also a 3 warhead system.
The WE177 tac nuke was also globally deployed by the RAF until 1998.
As for conventional forces, the PLA land force, despite its huge size and very good infantry, was very outdated in terms of doctrine, training and equipment for high op tempo mechanized warfare. The best type PLA tank in OTL 1980s was the unmodified Type 59 which is a slightly improved version of T-55. The Chieftain and Challenger I were superior to Type 59 in almost every aspect. The PLA did not have any self-propelled artillery until 1983 and the number of SPA available remained inadequate in the 1990s.
There were only two fully motorized corps in the PLA army in the 1980s, which were the 38th corps and 27th corps. Both have the importable duty to protect Beijing and reinforce the north in case the Soviet tanks come rushing in from thr north, northeast and northwest. The now declassizied intelligence report that the PLA would have to evacuate from Beijing in a week.
The lesser said about the PLAN in the 1980s and 1990s, the better.
Therefore, a war between UK and PRC is not an automatic loss for UK in OTL 1980s, when the two countries start to negotiate the future of HK. Whether they find HK worth fighting for is one thing, whether they have the ability to do so is another, who will win and how many killed are two others.
Do not conflate the rich and relatively advanced China today with the China 30 years ago. It was truly a different world.
Therefore, back to my questions stated in the beginning of this long post. Without knowing the situation of the 'DPRK esque' China, all we are doing is merely empty speculations.
It becomes part of the legitimate government of China (the Republic of China in Taiwan). 
Or said gouvernment extends the lease for the New Territories for another 99 years.It becomes part of the legitimate government of China (the Republic of China in Taiwan).