raharris1973
Well-known member
Would Britain have handed back Hong Kong to China on the same schedule (1997) if the Chinese Communists lost the Chinese Civil War?
Perhaps Britain would have. 1997 was when the 99-year British lease to Kowloon, the mainland extension of Hong Kong island, added to increase water supply and garden plots and defensive space for the urban districts of the island, was due to expire. It would be as good a time as any to also yield back the original island of Hong Kong, ceded in perpetuity in the treaty from the 1st Opium War, back as well, as part of the "matched set".
Or perhaps a world where the Chinese Communists did not take power over China, for any number of reasons*, China is not orderly enough to receive Hong Kong or to press or compel Britain to return Hong Kong, and the British Empireand colonialism is strong enough to hold on to to Hong Kong past 1997 up to 1998, 1999 or the end of 2000 and counting?
a) losing the Civil War after WWII because of American support for the KMT, better strategy or leadership improvement for KMT, less Soviet support for CCP, or no Soviet involvement at end of Japan war, or CCP strategy screw-ups/leadership trouble, or b) No WWII or Sino-Japanese war to batter down KMT China and leave it ripe for Communists, or c) Anti-Communist encirclement extermination campaigns wipe out Communists completely before start of Sino-Japanese War, d) USSR never invests in sponsoring KMT-CCP United Front and providing resources for reunifying northern expedition - China remains "warlord-y" forever, e) The Bolshevik revolution is crushed or stillborn, f) the Xinhai revolution is crushed or stillborn
Or perhaps a noncommunist China, ruled by the KMT Nationalist Party in particular, but also possibly by a linear descendant of a consolidated warlord claiming the mantle of the Beiyang Republic, or a monarchy, Qing or a new one, would have been likely to get Hong Kong back from Britain years or decades *earlier* than OTL. The rationale for this is that Chinese nationalism and resentment was growing demonstrably *every year* of the 20th century, from the beginning, with the Boxer Rebellion. It took steps up with the 1911 Xinhai revolution (though then *mainly* anti-Manchu), the negative reaction to Japan's "Twenty-One Demands" in 1915 (mainly anti-Japanese), and the 1919 May the 4th Movement (generically Anti-Foreign- w/USSR as partial exception and socially reformist and revolutionary) even before the Chinese Northern Expedition, which was also generically anti-foreign and socially reformist revolutionary to a degree, even taking an anti-communist/anti-Soviet turn at the end.
There were I believe discussions between Chiang and FDR about not restoring Hong Kong to Britain or not doing so permanently. Obviously, Britain was restored, and the Japanese held it at the end of the war and handed it back direct to Britain in reality.And immediately postwar, the Chinese Nationalist were preoccupied with the Civil War, that they ended up losing.
However, I wonder if they, or any noncommunist government, would have been under strong internal pressure from their left-leaning and genuinely nationalist, anti-imperialist flank, to follow up on their nationalist and anti-imperialist rhetoric, to get Hong Kong returned to the central Chinese government much earlier than 1997. As a country more open to the international market, with more trading ports like Shanghai and Tianjin, and not a Communist command a economy, Hong Kong likely would have less special utility for a Nationalist China, or any noncommunist China, or bourgeois Chinese refugees frankly, as a Chinese "window to the west". And vice versa for Britain to an extent. Also, I wonder if the Communists had the ultimate political safety and "flank security" allowing them to disregard any internal or international complaints they might be "soft on imperialism" for tolerating the Hong Kong colony in their midst and not just overrunning it. They are Communists. As totalitarians, they can silence criticism, and rationalize any tactic. They also are definitionally, and "objectively", to use their jargon, the most anti-imperialist thing out there, with automatic unassailable anti-imperialist "street cred" at home and abroad. The Chinese Nationalits, other warlords, Beiyang Republicans, or monarchs would not have had the same benefit of the doubt, and would have had to deliver anti-iimperialist *results* on Hong Kong (and likely Macau) sooner, to stay credible. Also, Britain wouldn't mind hanging Hong Kong over to a noncommunist Chinese regime as much, under most types of circumstances.
Perhaps Britain would have. 1997 was when the 99-year British lease to Kowloon, the mainland extension of Hong Kong island, added to increase water supply and garden plots and defensive space for the urban districts of the island, was due to expire. It would be as good a time as any to also yield back the original island of Hong Kong, ceded in perpetuity in the treaty from the 1st Opium War, back as well, as part of the "matched set".
Or perhaps a world where the Chinese Communists did not take power over China, for any number of reasons*, China is not orderly enough to receive Hong Kong or to press or compel Britain to return Hong Kong, and the British Empireand colonialism is strong enough to hold on to to Hong Kong past 1997 up to 1998, 1999 or the end of 2000 and counting?
a) losing the Civil War after WWII because of American support for the KMT, better strategy or leadership improvement for KMT, less Soviet support for CCP, or no Soviet involvement at end of Japan war, or CCP strategy screw-ups/leadership trouble, or b) No WWII or Sino-Japanese war to batter down KMT China and leave it ripe for Communists, or c) Anti-Communist encirclement extermination campaigns wipe out Communists completely before start of Sino-Japanese War, d) USSR never invests in sponsoring KMT-CCP United Front and providing resources for reunifying northern expedition - China remains "warlord-y" forever, e) The Bolshevik revolution is crushed or stillborn, f) the Xinhai revolution is crushed or stillborn
Or perhaps a noncommunist China, ruled by the KMT Nationalist Party in particular, but also possibly by a linear descendant of a consolidated warlord claiming the mantle of the Beiyang Republic, or a monarchy, Qing or a new one, would have been likely to get Hong Kong back from Britain years or decades *earlier* than OTL. The rationale for this is that Chinese nationalism and resentment was growing demonstrably *every year* of the 20th century, from the beginning, with the Boxer Rebellion. It took steps up with the 1911 Xinhai revolution (though then *mainly* anti-Manchu), the negative reaction to Japan's "Twenty-One Demands" in 1915 (mainly anti-Japanese), and the 1919 May the 4th Movement (generically Anti-Foreign- w/USSR as partial exception and socially reformist and revolutionary) even before the Chinese Northern Expedition, which was also generically anti-foreign and socially reformist revolutionary to a degree, even taking an anti-communist/anti-Soviet turn at the end.
There were I believe discussions between Chiang and FDR about not restoring Hong Kong to Britain or not doing so permanently. Obviously, Britain was restored, and the Japanese held it at the end of the war and handed it back direct to Britain in reality.And immediately postwar, the Chinese Nationalist were preoccupied with the Civil War, that they ended up losing.
However, I wonder if they, or any noncommunist government, would have been under strong internal pressure from their left-leaning and genuinely nationalist, anti-imperialist flank, to follow up on their nationalist and anti-imperialist rhetoric, to get Hong Kong returned to the central Chinese government much earlier than 1997. As a country more open to the international market, with more trading ports like Shanghai and Tianjin, and not a Communist command a economy, Hong Kong likely would have less special utility for a Nationalist China, or any noncommunist China, or bourgeois Chinese refugees frankly, as a Chinese "window to the west". And vice versa for Britain to an extent. Also, I wonder if the Communists had the ultimate political safety and "flank security" allowing them to disregard any internal or international complaints they might be "soft on imperialism" for tolerating the Hong Kong colony in their midst and not just overrunning it. They are Communists. As totalitarians, they can silence criticism, and rationalize any tactic. They also are definitionally, and "objectively", to use their jargon, the most anti-imperialist thing out there, with automatic unassailable anti-imperialist "street cred" at home and abroad. The Chinese Nationalits, other warlords, Beiyang Republicans, or monarchs would not have had the same benefit of the doubt, and would have had to deliver anti-iimperialist *results* on Hong Kong (and likely Macau) sooner, to stay credible. Also, Britain wouldn't mind hanging Hong Kong over to a noncommunist Chinese regime as much, under most types of circumstances.
