WI: UK and Portugal refuse to cede HK & Macau

Why make it a secret?

Proclaim loudly that that by 1996, when the Polaris A3T missiles were to be replaced with the Trident, were going to be land based at HK

Even if there's actually enough flat land in HK to build a missile base, who in their right mind is going to base nuclear weapons within walking distance of the enemy's commandos? It'd be like basing nuclear weapons next door to the Spetsnaz's main HQ.
 
Even if there's actually enough flat land in HK to build a missile base, who in their right mind is going to base nuclear weapons within walking distance of the enemy's commandos? It'd be like basing nuclear weapons next door to the Spetsnaz's main HQ.
Pershing Ib and II and Lance batteries in West Germany, not much different
 
Pershing Ib and II and Lance batteries in West Germany, not much different

Hong Kong's entire civilian population (bar a relative handful of Europeans) are potential Chinese agents, West Germany's wasn't. West Germany is a large country with huge numbers of soldiers defending it, my living room is bigger than Hong Kong.
 
Pershing Ib and II and Lance batteries in West Germany, not much different
As Mike D has pointed out, Hong Kong is pretty small (and a lot of that is pretty rough terrain).

It'd be pretty easy to drop a bunch of rockets and shells on whatever base Britain is dumb enough to put Polaris missiles in.
 
See Berlin.

Optics.
Propaganda.

Absolutely nobody thought Hong King was anything like Berlin in importance. As early as 1949, as I noted earlier in this thread, the US--which had gone and would go to the brink of war over Berlin--told the British government it could not commit itself to the defense of Hong King.
 
As Mike D has pointed out, Hong Kong is pretty small (and a lot of that is pretty rough terrain).

It'd be pretty easy to drop a bunch of rockets and shells on whatever base Britain is dumb enough to put Polaris missiles in.
Which is an attack on a nuclear power, who wasn't just limited to a few old Polaris missiles in hardened launchers that might not be knocked out with a few conventional rockets or shells

Worth taking the risk?
 
Which is an attack on a nuclear power, who wasn't just limited to a few old Polaris missiles in hardened launchers that might not be knocked out with a few conventional rockets or shells

Worth taking the risk?

The UK is not a dictatorship that can ignore public opinion. (Actually, even dictatorships can't totally ignore public opinion but that's another matter.) The British electorate is not going to risk war for Hong Kong, especially when the lease on the New Territories was due to expire in 1997 anyway, and Hong Kong was generally regarded as a colonial holdover.
 
Why make it a secret?

Proclaim loudly that that by 1996, when the Polaris A3T missiles were to be replaced with the Trident, were going to be land based at HK

Hey, that's a fun way to get overwhelmingly and promptly voted out of power!
 
Last edited:
Which is an attack on a nuclear power, who wasn't just limited to a few old Polaris missiles in hardened launchers that might not be knocked out with a few conventional rockets or shells

Worth taking the risk?
It's certainly not worth the risk for London, either to place outdated Polaris missiles there, or to retaliate.
 
Also, from another thread, there's this weird idea which was briefly cooked up by the civil service (doesn't hold on to HK, but effectively creates a new one!):
Sargon

That's an interesting idea. what would be really strange would be if the handover of HK happened earlier, like during the Cold War. (say late 70s)
What role would the Northern Ireland Chinese play in the Troubles?
Or what if, feeling virulently anti-communist and betrayed by the crown, they move to Rhodesia as capitalist/democratic refugees? How would this effect the Bush War?
This POD might be deserving of it's own thread...
 
A western identity for Hong Kong won't magically stop China from being able to bombard Hong Kong into an unlivable mess, at the very least.

NATO guilt isn't going to make anyone want to send their children off to die for a city state half way around the world.
I suppose I was thinking of them as a sort of analog for Israel, where there would be all this rhetoric about how they're our "greatest ally" and a bastion of democracy in their region. But I think you're right, HK has no where near the amount of influence over the US that Israel does, and so a war like that would be unlikely.
 
That's an interesting idea. what would be really strange would be if the handover of HK happened earlier, like during the Cold War. (say late 70s)
What role would the Northern Ireland Chinese play in the Troubles?
Or what if, feeling virulently anti-communist and betrayed by the crown, they move to Rhodesia as capitalist/democratic refugees? How would this effect the Bush War?
This POD might be deserving of it's own thread...
Another thought just crossed my mind...
Assuming Rhodesia accepts these Chinese refugees from Hong Kong, what would they do with the 400,000 (going off what Lusitania said) from Macau?
400,000 anti-communist, lusophone refugees need a place to go. Just east of Rhodesia, the Portuguese-speaking country of Mozambique is in a civil war.
It would make perfect sense to admit the Macau refugees and use them to win the Mozambique Civil War, then resettle them there to establish an allied government.
The CIO (Rhodesian CIA) was already sponsoring RENAMO, the anticommunists, in Mozambique. A victory on this front would provide them with easy, dependable access to the ocean, solving part of the embargo problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RENAMO

Rhodesia could even unify with post-war Mozambique as a bilingual country like Canada (or trilingual with all the Chinese). They could form a confederation like they tried to do in the 60s.

Honestly maybe a cession in the late 70s is better POD than a war in the 90s

Given what Joao said earlier:
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...
,it seems like Portugal was tired of the colony game at this point, but I'd be interested to get his perspective on what they'd do in this situation involving Mozambique.

Also, at this point in time, Brazil is under a right-wing, anti-marxist dictatorship. Might they send volunteers to Mozambique? I don't know much about the lusosphere, do y'all have the same sort of camaraderie that former British colonies do?

One last note: suppose the Brazilians help RENAMO, and RENAMO wins. Once the military dictatorship in Brazil ends in 1985, would some of its members/supporters move to Mozambique? Could we see Jair Bolsonaro becoming president of Mozambique in the 2000s?
 

Attachments

  • 1280px-Afonso_Dhlakama,_1993_in_Maringue.jpg
    1280px-Afonso_Dhlakama,_1993_in_Maringue.jpg
    215.2 KB · Views: 34
Last edited:
Which is an attack on a nuclear power, who wasn't just limited to a few old Polaris missiles in hardened launchers that might not be knocked out with a few conventional rockets or shells
Worth taking the risk?

absolutly. the risk of enough of the UK leadership suffering from delusional insanity at the same time is remote,while "ending foreign ocupation of us after a century of humiliation" was a core part of chinas entire worldview. whats next,the UK demands shanghai and beijing,and threatens to nuke them if they don't give it up? should they take the risk to refuse?
 

RousseauX

Donor
But morally the US, Britain along with rest of west would have a huge mess because there would be a huge outcry that people democratic rights were being trampled on and not respected. So while economically Macau abs Hong Kong were dependent on China a communist China demanding these enclaves being returned while its populations are demanding to remain independent.
In 1997 unification polled at something like 50% in HK, it very different from 2019

also, the west (uk/us) etc have never being shy about ignoring democracy and human rights when it suits them: see supporting Pinochet or Macros or Park Chung Hee
 

RousseauX

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.
The UK was unwilling/unable to defend HK in 1967 in the middle of the cultural revolution

as long as there is an intact Chinese state, Communist or Nationalist, HK is going back to China
 

RousseauX

Donor
It has nothing to do with western governments but in today’s world live television in the 90s images of huge demonstrations would be picked in the the west with huge demonstrations and pressure applied to western government.

Yes the western world have toppled democratic government but handing over millions of people who are desperate to not join communist China be a different story.
????

There's literal genocide happening in places like Burma and Xinjiang -today-, where's the mass demonstrations?

You are vastly overestimating how much western powers are "the good guys" who give a shit about human rights or democracy when marines are gonna come home in body bags to defend it

Plus at time there would of still existed a Cold War against communism and to force people to go to communist country would make a mockery of their Cold War talk.
China has being an American Cold War ally since the 1980s, the same animus against Soviet Communism doesn't exist against Chinese state capitalism
 

Lusitania

Donor
????

There's literal genocide happening in places like Burma and Xinjiang -today-, where's the mass demonstrations?

You are vastly overestimating how much western powers are "the good guys" who give a shit about human rights or democracy when marines are gonna come home in body bags to defend it

Please read the whole thread, I never argued once that Portugal or Honk Kong would defend the two territories with troops, I stated that Portugal offered the 400,000 Portuguese nationality and it the case of China still being old style Communist like in Mao's style these people (or majority would of jumped at the chance and moved to Portugal). Would the British who did not follow Portuguese example ignore the referendum rejecting unification and abandon all the residents of Hong Kong? My point was, would they together with lets say Canada, Australia, New Zealand and US (along with other countries) refuse the people of Hong Kong the ability to migrate or would they organize some sort of evacuation process.

So could the west ignore Hong Kong residents stating they do not want to return to Communist China. Hong Kong is not some backwards 3rd world country but even in the 1990s was one place with very high standard of living and large amount of $ and influence. We are not talking about 50% saying no but a clear majority of over 80% rejecting the returning to China.
 
China has being an American Cold War ally since the 1980s, the same animus against Soviet Communism doesn't exist against Chinese state capitalism
Suppose that that wasn't true, perhaps there's a Nixon related POD or the Sino-Soviet split never occurs. Given what Lusitania said:
... I stated that Portugal offered the 400,000 Portuguese nationality and it the case of China still being old style Communist like in Mao's style these people (or majority would of jumped at the chance and moved to Portugal). Would the British who did not follow Portuguese example ignore the referendum rejecting unification and abandon all the residents of Hong Kong? My point was, would they together with lets say Canada, Australia, New Zealand and US (along with other countries) refuse the people of Hong Kong the ability to migrate or would they organize some sort of evacuation process.

So could the west ignore Hong Kong residents stating they do not want to return to Communist China. Hong Kong is not some backwards 3rd world country but even in the 1990s was one place with very high standard of living and large amount of $ and influence. We are not talking about 50% saying no but a clear majority of over 80% rejecting the returning to China.
Do you think that the scenario I laid out in post #53 is a realistic outcome of a 1970s seizure of Macau and HK?
 
Top