WI: UK and Portugal refuse to cede HK & Macau

Suppose the Falklands war holds some sort of different cultural significance, or the 99 year lease with Qing China is declared null and void after the Chinese civil war.
What would a 1990's war between the UK and Portugal and China look like?
Who allies with which sides?
How capable was China's military back then, could they fend off western powers?
It goes without saying imo that HK, Kowloon, the New Territories, and Macau would all have their water cut off, even if there is no war.

If the West is victorious, they probably have total control of the South China sea post-war. What is the post-war china like? White Peace? Regime change and given to Taiwan? Divided up into different states based on ethnic divisions? A free Tibet and Uyghurstan ?
 
The UK had, from memory, two or three battalions of light infantry in Hong Kong. No idea about Macau but I can't see Portugal keeping much more than that deployed.

Chinese tanks can drive through both and make both nations look very, very stupid before the Governors finish the phone calls to their national governments telling them what's happening.

Once both are under Chinese control there's simply no way either the UK or Portugal are launching an attempt to invade and 'liberate' either of their former possessions.
 
The UK had, from memory, two or three battalions of light infantry in Hong Kong. No idea about Macau but I can't see Portugal keeping much more than that deployed.

Chinese tanks can drive through both and make both nations look very, very stupid before the Governors finish the phone calls to their national governments telling them what's happening.

Once both are under Chinese control there's simply no way either the UK or Portugal are launching an attempt to invade and 'liberate' either of their former possessions.
I guess I was picturing something like a more gradual escalation of tensions, allowing time for the UK to reinforce and establish air superiority.
You're probably right though.
 
Well, since Portugal had originally offered Macau back to China in the early 70s only to asked to hold the handover until the issue with Hong Kong was solved, I really don't see this happening...

And even the UK (which seemed to be a lot more interested in keeping Hong Kong) I don't find it realistic that they would let it get to the point of war...
 
I guess I was picturing something like a more gradual escalation of tensions, allowing time for the UK to reinforce and establish air superiority.
You're probably right though.

Even if there's time for the RAF to move additional forces to Hong Kong there's a handful of airbases in the country (I'm not even sure if all of them were fast air capable, I doubt there's room for that many long runways in Hong Kong), they're all minutes from the border at most for enemy air (and an hour or two by T-55), at least one of them is also being used to house Vietnamese refugees by the 1990s and the entire Chinese population of HK are potential saboteurs (or saboteurs can be sneaked over the border during the build up of tensions and hidden among sympathetic civilians). Even if the entire RN 'carrier force' of the 90s was able to be deployed at once to support the RAF you're talking, what, 30 odd Sea Harriers facing the entire Chinese air force. I reckon you'd need most of the USN carrier force to pull the defence of Hong Kong off, never mind what the RN could muster by the 90s.
 
Doubt that many nations will look at Britain and/or Portugal as the good guys, and froma a pure geo-political point of view it's just madness to risk war between nuclear powers over a single city. If Britain tries to stop the chinese it's likely a second Suez.
 
Well there be a decade at least of escalation of tension and if they get us to support the usa coming in and also starting to back them and I assume all the commonwealth will support us. So by the time war starts they will have much more than some light infantry battalions and much more men on the ground and in the sky and in the se
 
Hong Kong differed from Macau in that the New Territories were on a lease which would expire but Hong Kong itself was not and, in principle the UK could have maintained Hong Kong but it was both very difficult to do without the services and supplies of the New Territories and also that Hong Kong ceased making a profit. Hence the UK decided that a negotiated ending would best benefit the people of Hong Kong as a whole.

However, both had long been out of the colony game and happy to get their expensive millstone from around their necks. The troops were both a border force and a trip wire but were never intended to defend the colony militarily. China had much to gain from a working Hong Kong and Macau with no disruptions.
 
Well there be a decade at least of escalation of tension and if they get us to support the usa coming in and also starting to back them and I assume all the commonwealth will support us. So by the time war starts they will have much more than some light infantry battalions and much more men on the ground and in the sky and in the se
What on earth could possibly induce the US and Commonwealth to fight a possible nuclear war with the most populous country, and over a single city?
 
What on earth could possibly induce the US and Commonwealth to fight a possible nuclear war with the most populous country, and over a single city?
2 city’s Anee Hong Kong at the time was worth a huge amount of money and huge economic value to China that one reason Britain didn’t want to give it up. Also I said if they could USA to support them and I assume that the commonwealth specifically countries like Australia and New Zealand would prob support hen because China would be a first attack in this scenario
 
Almost ASB. Nobody in their right mind would think of trying to defend Hong Kong by force against the most populous country in the world. Given the size and snap of Hong Kong, realistically it would involve invading China itself and such an idea is all but fantasy.
 
What on earth could possibly induce the US and Commonwealth to fight a possible nuclear war with the most populous country, and over a single city?

Yes, the Commonwealth is not like NATO. Just because one nation, even the big momma, gets itself into a military spat, doesn't obligate the rest of them to support her.

At most, you MIGHT be able to get the white-majority Realm countries on on board, but even that might be a tough haul. And I think third-world solidarity would preclude the UK getting support from the African republics, the Caribbean states, or even China's traditional rival India.
 

Lusitania

Donor
I do wonder though if China was not moving towards market liberalization and western style economics and was instead a full communist country similar to Cuba or North Korea.

What if in the lead up to the new territory lease expiry there was a local anti-return movement in both territories resulting in a referendum being held where 70-80 said no to return.

What would the British and Portuguese do then and what would the worlds reaction be?

Note: Hong Kong’s population was I think around 6 million while Macau 400,000. Also Portugal did offer full Portuguese nationality to all resident of Macau unlike the UK.
 
A POD after 1984 at the latest doesn't work to get the UK to try to hold on to Hong Kong. Deng's reforms are taking hold and China, for better or for worse, is being incorporated into the western economic system. China wants Hong Kong without disruption and the UK and USA (whose backing the USA needs) are not looking to go to war with China, a war China is likely to win.

However, if Deng fails or doesn't come to power, and the version fo China we get in the 1980s and 90s is completely screwed up, to the point where if the Chinese take Hong Kong the Royal Navy slaps them down in Opium War 3 with the rest of the world cheering on, or the Chinese are too involved in another civil war to make the attempt, yes the British will hold Hong Kong since the lease doesn't affect the island and they can say they will negotiate a return of the New Territories later when there is someone to negotiate with.

This works better if you put on the China screw even earlier, to the point where the People's Republic never happens and the warlord era just continues into the 21st century, even better if you can keep the French or a French puppet regime in Vietnam and the British can use air and naval bases there if they need to.

In either scenario the world would be hugely different in other respects.
 
I do wonder though if China was not moving towards market liberalization and western style economics and was instead a full communist country similar to Cuba or North Korea.

What if in the lead up to the new territory lease expiry there was a local anti-return movement in both territories resulting in a referendum being held where 70-80 said no to return.

What would the British and Portuguese do then and what would the worlds reaction be?

Note: Hong Kong’s population was I think around 6 million while Macau 400,000. Also Portugal did offer full Portuguese nationality to all resident of Macau unlike the UK.

I like this angle. Hong Kong becomes very anti-communist and develops a western identity as a result. China is seen as much scarier than in OTL, and is much poorer than in OTL as well.
I mean if the west was putting in all the work it did to protect and feed West Berlin, how would this be that different? Western nations would feel far guiltier about giving an unwilling HK to a tyrannical China.
 

Lusitania

Donor
A POD after 1984 at the latest doesn't work to get the UK to try to hold on to Hong Kong. Deng's reforms are taking hold and China, for better or for worse, is being incorporated into the western economic system. China wants Hong Kong without disruption and the UK and USA (whose backing the USA needs) are not looking to go to war with China, a war China is likely to win.

However, if Deng fails or doesn't come to power, and the version fo China we get in the 1980s and 90s is completely screwed up, to the point where if the Chinese take Hong Kong the Royal Navy slaps them down in Opium War 3 with the rest of the world cheering on, or the Chinese are too involved in another civil war to make the attempt, yes the British will hold Hong Kong since the lease doesn't affect the island and they can say they will negotiate a return of the New Territories later when there is someone to negotiate with.

This works better if you put on the China screw even earlier, to the point where the People's Republic never happens and the warlord era just continues into the 21st century, even better if you can keep the French or a French puppet regime in Vietnam and the British can use air and naval bases there if they need to.

In either scenario the world would be hugely different in other respects.
Have the gang of 4 succeed in seizing power and Mao dies.
 
2 city’s Anee Hong Kong at the time was worth a huge amount of money and huge economic value to China that one reason Britain didn’t want to give it up. Also I said if they could USA to support them and I assume that the commonwealth specifically countries like Australia and New Zealand would prob support hen because China would be a first attack in this scenario

By the 1990s, China is a more important export market for Australia and New Zealand than the UK. Australia would get involved if the USA told it to, but that's really it.
 
Top