In the timeline I am working on (see sig) I am letting the UK keep Hong Kong. My though was directly after WW2 the nationalists might be willing to cede the New Territories in exchange for now surplus armaments and money. The Royal Navy in 46-47 has quite a few ships it is planning to scrap and could easily transfer at least a dozen. It would have to be done before the People's Republic of China is proclaimed though or the PRC will want it back even more...
How to get whole Hong Kong permanently leased to the UK?
- Thread starter abc123
- Start date
The only reason Britain gave up the whole thing is because the Leased Territory had the cities major water supply and stuff like that running through it, and once the leased territories reverted back to Chinese authority they could literally turn off the water and stuff, screwing over Hong Kong itself badly.
Ahahaha... no. The Americans, a greater military power by far, was not able to prop up the KMT despite not inconsiderable aid. The British both cannot afford to and do not have enough to offer the KMT. Besides, the Civil War was a land war, and giving the KMT even MORE naval superiority wasn't going to matter, and Cheng wasn't going to give up what limited resource he had on what would be a luxury. Etc, etc - and if you plan on having the PRC still winning (as you seem to), then the main point is that it STILL wouldn't have mattered even if it was legally so. The PRC would just demand the whole thing back, see OTL.
Uh, no. That's important, but all sorts of things like Chinese determination, impracticality of keeping the territory separate, mortgage issue etc, mattered, if not more.
Let's put it this way, Singapore depends on Malaysia for its water, that does not immediately make Singapore automatically capitulate to Malaysia's Irresistible Offer of Annexation. The fact that Deng was determined to take the whole thing back if it was a bombed out crater was what really mattered - that he was willing to turn off the water, march in the PLA, and there was nothing the British could do about it - and the he convinced the British of that.
Exactly. The pre-requisite for this TL becoming feasible is to make sure that at least Guangdong province, the source of HK's water supply, does not fall into PRC hands.
OTOH, Britain might take a leaf out of Singapore and develop desalination technology as a back-up in case Guangdong falls. (Singapore's desalination plans was Lee Kuan-Yew's way of saying F-you to Malaysia when they threatened to cut off Singapore's water supply if he didn't comply with them when disputes arise between the two countries. )
The water issue was just a red herring for the British government to explain itself. The real answer is PRC wanted HK back on it's own timeline. It could take HK by force anytime after 1949, but decided it was to its interest to leave things be until the lease ended. It gave China diplomatic cover and Britain saved face.
I seem to recall reading somewhere that the PRC also found it valuable for back channel communications at an unofficial level as well
The Chinese have a long history of diplomatic relations with the British that it didn't have with the Americans and Soviets which where China's main threats in the Cold War. Britain represented no existential threat to China and their relatively pragmatic relations with China was worth preserving in the heady days of Cold War hysteria.
HAHAHAHA - how about no? Hong Kong consumes something in the order of 2 million m^3 of fresh water - a day. The gigantic Singapore plant, largest in the world IIRC, produces about a tenth that. And eat up electricity like the dickens. And it didn't come online until 2005 (and couldn't HAVE much earlier). The chances of creating all the infrastructure and investment being in place by 1997 to reliably see Hong Kong's water supplied is... questionable.
As of the late 70's, they also made a fair amount of money through trade with Hong Kong and through a number of state-run banks operating there.
So in a scenario where post-Mao China neither reforms nor goes off the Maoist deep end, I could see plenty of benefits to China leaving Hong Kong alone after 1997.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Cardiff_(D108)
or the City?
Because I don't think the Chinese would want the city, I don't think anybody would really want anywhere in the UK
You need to show the cost-benefit ratio of whatever money they can make through Hong Kong and not through, say, Taiwan or Korea or direct trade would outweigh perceived political imperatives. My feeling is that the lost revenue would not be significant for a Chinese-run Hong Kong, but you'd need to show some numbers.
The political imperative on the other hand would be difficult to understate. Allowing the ceded parts to remain would be bad enough, extending the lease of the New Territories would be more or less unthinkable, and very few PRC governments can afford to overlook that, especially one that has neither the economic power through reform nor the ideological backdrop of Maoism.
abc123
Banned
IMO the only chance for that is before 1945.
They could offer to the Republic of China great aid in fighting against the Japanese. But that has big problem because you risk involving UK in Chinese- Japanese war.
Second opporunity is maybe in early days of Chinese Republic...
I did post an idea once where Britain adopts a strange variant of a "two Chinas" policy where the PRC is recognised as the legitimate government of the Mainland, but the ROC is recognised as the legitimate government of Taiwan and the successor of the Qing Empire. Therefore, Hong Kong is leased from the ROC- for whom taking it back would be impractical.
Now you just have to stop the PRC from taking it by force...
Now you just have to stop the PRC from taking it by force...
Typo
Banned
Why does Britain decide to try to keep HK at the cost of losing economic opportunities on the mainland?
abc123
Banned
Well, UK export in PRC for 2009. was about 10 billions USD.
Let's say that UK companies earn another 10 billions in China. That's 20 billions.
GDP of Hong Kong in 2010 was about 300 billions USD in 2010.
If UK used only 1% of that money for defence needs, that's 3 billions. For defence of HK is enough 1,5 billions, the rest can be spent on other UK military projects....
Selling of weapons to the Taiwan could be a very good business...
Upholder class submarines, Harrier and Eurofighter jets, Merlin helicopters...
And you could also get money from China for NOT selling weapons to Taiwan.
Typo
Banned
Well, let's just pass over the fact that you just made up the number for British investment in China and the amount of money needed for defense, you seem to have this weird conception that Hong Kong's GDP is the same as net revenue for Britain and that it would stay the same if relations with the mainland is cut.Well, UK export in PRC for 2009. was about 10 billions USD.
Let's say that UK companies earn another 10 billions in China. That's 20 billions.
GDP of Hong Kong in 2010 was about 300 billions USD in 2010.
If UK used only 1% of that money for defence needs, that's 3 billions. For defence of HK is enough 1,5 billions, the rest can be spent on other UK military projects....
I don't understand, why exactly can't the British sell weapons to Taiwan in OTL? Why would Taiwan buy weapons from the British instead of the Americans as they do now?
abc123
Banned
I'm aware that I oversimplified some things, as you warned me, but the point stands. Some serious calculating of costs and benefits of keeping/returnong of Hong Kong should be made.
And Hong Kong's GDP isn't OFC net revenue for UK, but 300 billions larger GDP isn't small thing. I hope that UK earned more with return of HK to China.
About the second question- i dont know the answer. Ask the HMG and USG?
Last edited:
Typo
Banned
Of course, this isn't taking into account cheap Chinese imports -into- Britain, and of course assuming that the 300 billion figure would stand if China embargos Hong Kong, as oppose to you know, economically break since something like 50% of its trade is with the mainland. And this is something measured in purely dollar value, not taking into account the geopolitical consequences of such a move from the 50s on.
The point is that this is not something which would benefit the UK anywayAbout the second question- i dont know the answer. Ask the HMG and USG?
Devvy
Donor
Would things of turned out differently if the Chinese Civil War had panned out slightly differently? Maybe something would give Britain a chance to annex the New Territories and further inland...something like both sides fighting it out in stalemate for ages, and the LoN intervening and awarding a mandate for the Canton area of China to the UK? Just a thought...