The New Territories ceded in perpetuity?

Britain could try to grant HK independence.

Remember when Portugal granted East Timor independence?

468px-President_Suharto%2C_1993.jpg


This guy said "no. It's mine." China's response will be pretty much the same, in an even more lopsided outcome. Not that this can't be done, but an independent HK would need security guarantees from the UK or US, and it's very hard to obtain those, given the situation.
 
Last edited:
Remember in the aftermath of Mao's victory there was a huge "who lost China" meme in the USA. In the face of that would the Truman administration sit passively by if Mao took HK, especially if the UK was not accepting it as a fait accompli? No way to be sure one way or the other, but internal US politics would come in to play here - the key is British internal politics. If the Brits say who cares, then the US can easily do nothing. OTOH if the British are upset....
 

althisfan

Banned
Remember when Portugal granted East Timor independence?

468px-President_Suharto%2C_1993.jpg


This guy said "no. It's mine." China's response will be pretty much the same, in an even more lopsided outcome. Not that this can't be done, but an independent HK would need security guarantees from the UK or US, and it's very hard to obtain those, given the situation.
Coincidence- the word meme came about in the same year (1976) as Indonesia's annexation of East Timor.
 

althisfan

Banned
Remember in the aftermath of Mao's victory there was a huge "who lost China" meme in the USA. In the face of that would the Truman administration sit passively by if Mao took HK, especially if the UK was not accepting it as a fait accompli? No way to be sure one way or the other, but internal US politics would come in to play here - the key is British internal politics. If the Brits say who cares, then the US can easily do nothing. OTOH if the British are upset....
Nope, there wasn't a meme about that. Meme wasn't a word until 1976. And since China is the RoC until the 70s China wasn't lost. The PRC isn't China at that time. And according to eSwatini it still isn't. On AH.com we should really be careful about words and their meanings, calling the PRC as China can be confusing as calling North Korea just "Korea" or West Germany in a thread about the 1960s as just "Germany".
 

RousseauX

Donor
Remember in the aftermath of Mao's victory there was a huge "who lost China" meme in the USA. In the face of that would the Truman administration sit passively by if Mao took HK, especially if the UK was not accepting it as a fait accompli? No way to be sure one way or the other, but internal US politics would come in to play here - the key is British internal politics. If the Brits say who cares, then the US can easily do nothing.
The problem is that you are seeing Hong Kong the way it's seen post 1980s rather than what it was back in the late 1940s. Hong Kong in the 80s-90s became a cultural and economic center and a kind of symbol of defiance of Chinese Communist rule in the western media. Hong Kong in the 1950s was far less important both in actuality and in the minds of the average American voter (if they even knew it existed).

Does Truman do something, maybe, but is that something to send hundreds of thousands of US soldiers to re-take Hong Kong? Probably not.

OTOH if the British are upset....
Like they were after Suez? what are they gonna do, pull out of NATO?
 
Remember in the aftermath of Mao's victory there was a huge "who lost China" meme in the USA. In the face of that would the Truman administration sit passively by if Mao took HK, especially if the UK was not accepting it as a fait accompli? No way to be sure one way or the other, but internal US politics would come in to play here - the key is British internal politics. If the Brits say who cares, then the US can easily do nothing. OTOH if the British are upset....

This is probably what caused conflict to be avoided. Britain adopted a conciliatory position on the PRC once it was clear that it would win the civil war. The British recognized the PRC as the government of China in 1950, long before most of their allies (or the UN). For Mao, this was a big diplomatic victory that would only be jeopardized by an invasion of HK.

The PRC also figured out at some point that it was useful to maintain HK/Macau as back-door entrances to the West.

Personally, I think people are too focused on the 1949 era. To me the more interesting timeframe here is in the 1980s/90s.
 
Last edited:
This is probably what caused conflict to be avoided. Britain adopted a conciliatory position on the PRC once it was clear that it would win the civil war. The British recognized the PRC as the government of China in 1950, long before most of their allies (or the UN). For Mao, this was a big diplomatic victory that would only be jeopardized by an invasion of HK.

The PRC also figured out at some point that it was useful to maintain HK/Macau as back-door entrances to the West.

Personally, I think people are too focused on the 1949 era. To me the more interesting timeframe here is in the 1980s/90s.

By the 1980s/1990s, an economic blockade would likely force the British to the negotiating table (there's not much economic point to Hong Kong if it can't do business with the Mainland).
 
I can't see Britain willing to let Hong Kong go to be honest.

As has been said, Britain isn't in a great spot financially. That was a major reason for the Opium Wars.

I could see an attack by China seen as something the entire British establishment couldn't tolerate, so much so that it's lead to war.

It's be interesting to see a free market pearl rover basin as a result as a British satellite. I could see that leading to a desire in China for new leadership, or old depending on how you see Tiawan.

I think if you had that free market pearl rover you could have a terrifyingly wealthy region of China partnered with Britain. Either changing Britain's model of Empire, with this Pearl Rover district being Britain's "Factory of Asia". Not to mention it's destabilising effect on the rest of China post war.
 

RousseauX

Donor
I can't see Britain willing to let Hong Kong go to be honest.

As has been said, Britain isn't in a great spot financially. That was a major reason for the Opium Wars.

I could see an attack by China seen as something the entire British establishment couldn't tolerate, so much so that it's lead to war.

It's be interesting to see a free market pearl rover basin as a result as a British satellite. I could see that leading to a desire in China for new leadership, or old depending on how you see Tiawan.

I think if you had that free market pearl rover you could have a terrifyingly wealthy region of China partnered with Britain. Either changing Britain's model of Empire, with this Pearl Rover district being Britain's "Factory of Asia". Not to mention it's destabilising effect on the rest of China post war.
1) Otl Britain was willing to let HK go in the 1940s-60s, it was not that big of a deal to the British establishment when so many more important parts of the empire was being let go in the post-war period. It stayed British because the Chinese wanted it as a gateway to the outside world when the rest of China was shut off. This remains true unless the world wars are butterflied.

2) Otl Britain was willing to let HK go in the 80s-90s

3) The British did not have the military capacity to hold onto Hong Kong, let along take over and hold parts of southern china post-1945

Basically Hong Kong of the 50s-60s was not economic prosperous or symbolic enough so fight over
 
Last edited:
1) Otl Britain was willing to let HK go in the 1940s-60s, it was not that big of a deal to the British establishment when so many more important parts of the empire was being let go in the post-war period. It stayed British because the Chinese wanted it as a gateway to the outside world when the rest of China was shut off. This remains true unless the world wars are butterflied.

2) Otl Britain was willing to let HK go in the 80s-90s

3) The British did not have the military capacity to hold onto Hong Kong, let along take over and hold parts of southern china post-1945

Basically Hong Kong of the 50s-60s was not economic prosperous or symbolic enough so fight over

That's fair, but there is a difference between letting it go, and national pride when Communism attacks you. (I mean, I might be naive, as this isn't my strongest time period). I think in that case, perhaps only with US backing, the UK would stand its ground.
 

RousseauX

Donor
That's fair, but there is a difference between letting it go, and national pride when Communism attacks you. (I mean, I might be naive, as this isn't my strongest time period). I think in that case, perhaps only with US backing, the UK would stand its ground.
One of the big problems is that Hong Kong is pretty small so it falls in literally a couple of days unless something really big changes

Is there the political will to send in the royal marines and a fleet to take it back afterwards like the Falklands but without a big sea keeping HK apart from the mainland which guarantees tens of thousands of casualties even if it does succeed? I lean no.
 
One of the big problems is that Hong Kong is pretty small so it falls in literally a couple of days unless something really big changes

Is there the political will to send in the royal marines and a fleet to take it back afterwards like the Falklands but without a big sea keeping HK apart from the mainland which guarantees tens of thousands of casualties even if it does succeed? I lean no.

Depends on how much the US pushes its support. The UK and US have the advantage at this point of Japan being occupied, providing an easy way to strike at Beijing and China in general.

I do agree, and lean with you against it happening, but its a possibility that I think is more interesting.
 
One of the big problems is that Hong Kong is pretty small so it falls in literally a couple of days unless something really big changes

Is there the political will to send in the royal marines and a fleet to take it back afterwards like the Falklands but without a big sea keeping HK apart from the mainland which guarantees tens of thousands of casualties even if it does succeed? I lean no.

Yea, even the Falklands had a considerable margin of failure, but the fact that the Argentinians had to ship all their troops across as well meant that once the Royal Navy was in place, they could blockade them from the island and isolate its garrison. Not so for Hong Kong.
 
Top