WI the UK handed Hong Kong over to Taiwan?

I think the night before handover ceremony massive instability riots and dangerous demonstrations occurred in Beijing, Shanghai, Fuzhou, and southern Guangdong province over the PRC given up the claim on Hong Kong returning to China due to faced potential reliable economic sanctions on foods and commodities from western nations. Riots spiraled over wrongful disgraceful handover on the disdainful sadness and frustrated humiliated history of PRC on night of June 30, 1997. There would be some people in Southern Guangdong province getting hurts from chaotic protesting and rioting.

what do you think?
 
Every time anything about Hong Kong comes up I say this, but ill do it again anyway. If the PRC were to collapse in the late 80s early 90s for some reason or another, I suppose this could happen depending on how the aftermath of the collapse goes.
 
I think the night before handover ceremony massive instability riots and dangerous demonstrations occurred in Beijing, Shanghai, Fuzhou, and southern Guangdong province over the PRC given up the claim on Hong Kong returning to China due to faced potential reliable economic sanctions on foods and commodities from western nations. Riots spiraled over wrongful disgraceful handover on the disdainful sadness and frustrated humiliated history of PRC on night of June 30, 1997. There would be some people in Southern Guangdong province getting hurts from chaotic protesting and rioting.

what do you think?
The PRC is not going to give up claims on Hong Kong. And you think the government cares about the people? They LITERALLY let millions die abd starve during the 50s and 60s
 
The PRC is not going to give up claims on Hong Kong.
Then it is PRC version badmouthing hypocrisy blasted the "volatile hostile rogue HK province" when Taiwan Army took over entire Hong Kong on morning of July 1, 1997. True, China said in the legacy it won't admitted the defeat on giving up Hong Kong after 1997 when Taiwan ROC government took over British Hong Kong.
 
Then it is PRC version badmouthing hypocrisy blasted the "volatile hostile rogue HK province" when Taiwan Army took over entire Hong Kong on morning of July 1, 1997. True, China said in the legacy it won't admitted the defeat on giving up Hong Kong after 1997 when Taiwan ROC government took over British Hong Kong.
PLAN navy warships defend Hong Kong and shoots down the ROC invasion fleet. At best you're going to get a Rhodes Island 1943 situation where the ROC somehow lands in Hong Kong then the PLAAF would MASSACRE the ROC troops.
 
The PRC is not going to give up claims on Hong Kong. And you think the government cares about the people? They LITERALLY let millions die abd starve during the 50s and 60s
This is the same PRC that gunned down its own students in 1989 for daring to ask for the vote. They will not back down over reclaiming Hong Kong while any sort of central Government exists.
 
What would PR. China wants in early 1990s under negotiation warnings about British government intended on Hong Kong turned over to Taiwanese administration during British and Chinese talk in Beijing? What would Chinese FM warned on Britain about one-China policy under PRC on Hong Kong handover?
 
Last edited:
What would PR. China wants in early 1990s under negotiation warnings about British government intended on Hong Kong turned over to Taiwanese administration during British and Chinese talk in Beijing? What would Chinese FM warned on Britain about one-China policy under PRC on Hong Kong handover?

PRC: "Give us Hong Kong."

UK: "Dammit. Fine."

There's really no plausible scenario where it plays out any differently, sorry to say. You need a ~1945 POD with the ROC holding southern China, and even then the ROC is (rightly) likely to demand all of Hong Kong,
 
PRC: "Give us Hong Kong."

UK: "Dammit. Fine."

There's really no plausible scenario where it plays out any differently, sorry to say. You need a ~1945 POD with the ROC holding southern China, and even then the ROC is (rightly) likely to demand all of Hong Kong,
The UK said to Chinese FM spokesperson during meeting in Beijing: "But Taiwan will be pissed off over distraught annulled agreement since December 1984 policies. Why don't you talk to Taipei administration to handle the compromise arguments that let's say the 10 more year lease from 1898 treaty to decide what's best for the future of Hong Kongers choices to either stay in Britain or returned to PRC as HKSAR but maintain PRC military defense and other external affairs. Please offer a new deal in months in exchange for that the PRC relinquished the claimed on Taiwan ROC and let Taiwan becomes independent as UN member state."
How would China's FM response conversation?
 
Last edited:
There's really not a lot that the UK can do to keep Hong Kong. The PRC wanted Hong Kong and, as far as it was concerned, it was going to get Hong Kong. I suppose you could find a way for either the 1898 Second Convention of Peking to choose a perpetual lease instead of a 99-year lease, or in 1909 the Governor of Hong Kong pushing the UK government to cede Weihaiwei in exchange for a permanent cession of the New Territories (Weihaiwei was later handed back in the 30s).

Maybe with a successful Suez, the UK keeps an East of Suez mentality and sees Hong Kong as a means to springboard into Asia?
 
The UK said to Chinese FM spokesperson during meeting in Beijing: "But Taiwan will be pissed off over distraught annulled agreement since December 1984 policies. Why don't you talk to Taipei administration to handle the compromise arguments that let's say the 10 more year lease from 1898 treaty to decide what's best for the future of Hong Kongers choices to either stay in Britain or returned to PRC as HKSAR but maintain PRC military defense and other external affairs. Please offer a new deal in months in exchange for that the PRC relinquished the claimed on Taiwan ROC and let Taiwan becomes independent as UN member state."
How would China's FM response conversation?
Would Beijing communicated with Taipei officials on new negotiation to let Hong Kong remained as Britain for 10 more years after 1997 to give critical extra number of years to decide Hong Kong's autonomy status based on judicial, political, educational, tourism, correctional services, transportation, languages, and others (since Britain signed with ROC Taiwan as "1984 Taiwanese-British Joint Declaration"?
China laughs during negotiations

*British diplomat : We would give Hong Kong to the ROC*

*Chinese diplomat : Slides in VHS, showing British diplomat Chinese firepower*

*British diplomat : But Taiwan would be angry*

*Chinese diplomat : Don't care. Lease is over. Hand it over*

*British diplomat : Taiwan will invade Hong Kong if you do that!"

*Chinese diplomat : Really? Phones Chinese general "Mobilize and deploy all units on high alert"

And based on your "1984 Taiwanese-British Joint Declaration" which does not exist and based off the real 1984 Sino British Joint Declaration, it seems like you're planning to use someone else's thread to start your Hong Kong misadventures after you were told by mods to stop spamming

@CalBear
 

dcharleos

Donor
And based on your "1984 Taiwanese-British Joint Declaration" which does not exist and based off the real 1984 Sino British Joint Declaration, it seems like you're planning to use someone else's thread to start your Hong Kong misadventures after you were told by mods to stop spamming

@CalBear

I was thinking this was taking a left turn.
 
I'm not a China expert by any means, so don't take this the wrong way.
Of course not; neither am I (and I'm still trying to do some research for which China would be part of a few TL projects I'm considering).
But it seems like a much easier way is to have the UK have relations with ROC. What are the factors for and against?
See, here's how I would view it. Up until 1950, it would certainly be possible for the UK to have some form of relations with the ROC had it retained a substantial portion of territory in China itself. Even that, however, is not all that certain because:
a) Jiang was very much adamant in wanting to end all the foreign concessions resulting from the unequal treaties and all that. While the war with Japan was a major factor, other countries before and after the war with Japan also managed to end their concessions and hand their territory over. The expectation here would be that Britain would do the same WRT Hong Kong after the war was over.
b) OTOH, Whitehall was pretty much sceptical (British spelling intentional here) of Jiang's regime, and was absolutely baffled when FDR started promoting China as one of the major Allies of the War. Even then, everyone knew that if the Civil War was going to re-ignite, the Communists were going to win regardless, so it was a pointless waste of time to prop up a corrupt regime like Jiang's. So the UK held a wait and see attitude when it came to the Civil War (at least as far as HK is concerned, since it was highly dependent on imports of food, water, and electricity from the Mainland), and then switched to recognizing the PRC almost immediately after Mao declared it from Tien'anmen Square.
So, from that viewpoint, the UK was never really going to recognize Jiang's regime on Taiwan; there could be a presence there, if need be (which the UK ultimately did on the model of the US's AIT), but it would not be official recognition - all the more so since, up until the Korean War, everyone was expecting Taiwan would be one of the last dominoes to fall to the PRC's authority. So, not only would holding substantial territory in China itself would not just be enough (and, more importantly, having more areas in China under the direct jurisdiction of the central government instead of in the hands of warlords), but the nature of the ROC itself would have to dramatically change. That is why I presented other solutions to that conundrum that could make the photoshop seem plausible, since no matter which Chinese government takes control, they're all going to get HK anyway, sooner or later.

The ROC on Taiwan managed to drastically change because Jiang and his government had such a thorough loss of face from being on the losing side of the Civil War that they needed to rebuild his credibility. You would need something on that type of scale much sooner to have even a modicum of change of scepticism in Whitehall. My personal favorite would be having the China Democratic League (or even the China Democratic Socialist Party, one of its components) replace the GMD as the ROC's ruling party, though how that would come about (in a manner that is plausible) I don't know. However, there's a range of possibilities to approaching the GMD, even slowing down the Northern Expedition so that the GMD could more thoroughly remove the warlords from Chinese political life (hence making the Northern Expedition seem like a Chinese version of the Mexican Revolution). Even better here would be if the UK supported the GMD's efforts at unifying China from the beginning, way back in the 1920s (after all, HK was one of the birthplaces of the GMD, and Sun Yat-sen spent some time in the city and wished something like its administrative system could be replicated in China), so the GMD would not be totally reliant on the Soviet Union for, well, everything. Now, of course, there would have to be a price for that support (most likely including submitting HK to GMD authority, though with some concessions to assuage the population and retain the civil service/administrative structure), but if that's what it takes to get an ally in China, then Britain would definitely try that if it's cheaper than continuing to maintain a direct colonial administration and would keep the ROC happy.

Of course, everything @CalBear and @Admiral Bloonbeard stated I also agree with, and does a better job explaining OTL than I could. But ultimately it comes down to the fact that no matter which Chinese government is in power, they will all want HK back under its rule, sooner rather than later. To many Chinese nationalists (including, it should be pointed out, many Hong Kongers as well, since they were tired of all the racism and all that from the colonial government), HK stood out as a sore thumb, a symbol of all that was wrong about the century of humiliation as the foreign concession par excellence. Therefore, it was imperative that the last remnants of colonialism, like HK, should be dismantled and brought back to Chinese rule. It also was convenient that Britain didn't see much value in HK except in a transactional sense, as an entrepôt pointing the direction to the Chinese market, but run as cheaply as possible so as to not place a heavy burden on the public purse. Once HK stops being useful to Britain, than Britain will want to dispose of it at the earliest possible opportunity. IOTL, since Britain recognized the PRC early on as the legitimate government of China, that meant eventually following the PRC's timetable on this (and the PRC were willing to wait until the New Territories lease ran out). ITTL, if the ROC still managed a formidable presence on China itself, in some capacity, it will be much more impatient about HK, regardless of the lease, and would want it returned ASAP. If it was handed over to the GMD as a confidence-building measure early on, that would be a great start to a more successful Northern Expedition ITTL.
 
And based on your "1984 Taiwanese-British Joint Declaration" which does not exist and based off the real 1984 Sino British Joint Declaration, it seems like you're planning to use someone else's thread to start your Hong Kong misadventures after you were told by mods to stop spamming
This story is about what happened in 1984 Britain decided to have a contract with ROC Taiwan government under “1984 ROC-British Joint declaration” rather than Thatcher visited Beijing on final official negotiation about Hong Kong, which stated that Hong Kong shall returned to Republic of China, Taiwan on July 1, 1997 under alternate timeline rather than handed back to PRC. Then, after Tiananmen Square 1989 crackdown, the PRC officials heavily confronted British diplomats over outrageous contract ROC-British Joint declaration already with ROC Taiwan government demanding the original contract declaration to be annulled or faced devastating consequences in Hong Kong in years.
 
What would PR. China wants in early 1990s under negotiation warnings about British government intended on Hong Kong turned over to Taiwanese administration during British and Chinese talk in Beijing?
The PRC would just simply want HK back. Which would definitely be helped by Lee Teng-hui (and, for that matter, Chiang Ching-kuo) pretty much trying to distance himself from that suggestion as much as possible - not to mention the Taiwanese would be overwhelmingly opposed to taking over HK from the British. Not when Taiwan is in the middle of a fast-paced transition to democracy, while also not wanting to cause trouble with China that would give a pretext for the PLA to invade. So the suggestion of turning over HK to Taipei's jurisdiction would be a non-starter that is also ASB.
 
This story is about what happened in 1984 Britain decided to have a contract with ROC Taiwan government under “1984 ROC-British Joint declaration” rather than Thatcher visited Beijing on final official negotiation about Hong Kong, which stated that Hong Kong shall returned to Republic of China, Taiwan on July 1, 1997 under alternate timeline rather than handed back to PRC. Then, after Tiananmen Square 1989 crackdown, the PRC officials heavily confronted British diplomats over outrageous contract ROC-British Joint declaration already with ROC Taiwan government demanding the original contract declaration to be annulled or faced devastating consequences in Hong Kong in years.
Britain already recognize the PRC in 1950. Why is it going to negotiate with a nation it does not recognize?

Are you going to double down on this?
 
Britain already recognize the PRC in 1950. Why is it going to negotiate with a nation it does not recognize?

Are you going to double down on this?
Yes. In alternate timeline when Britain decided to handed Hong Kong back to Republic of China (Taiwan), who was not part of UN member state during 1984 signing declaration at Taipei, Taiwan due to intensity debatable political disputes on legitimate whose One of China belong to. The British wants to negotiated Taiwanese government to explains the reasons on imminent losses and crumbled HK universal suffrage on the legislative council that political expression may not be fully free on HK Democrats if HK handed to PRC under “One country-two systems”. Can you explain much further on what happened scenario on PRC negotiation to see the documents from “ROC-British Joint Declaration” sometimes on bitter 1990 meeting talks? What would Chinese diplomats reacted on tensions about documents?
 
Last edited:
Yes. In alternate timeline when Britain decided to handed Hong Kong back to Republic of China (Taiwan), who was not part of UN member state during 1984 signing declaration at Taipei, Taiwan. Can you explain much further on what happened scenario on PRC negotiation to see the documents from “ROC-British Joint Declaration” sometimes on bitter 1990 meeting talks? What would Chinese diplomats reacted on tensions about documents?
No I will not explain that because this is someone else's thread and you're trying to use this thread as a backdoor into something YOU want after you were told specifically by a mod not to do this.
 
No I will not explain that because this is someone else's thread and you're trying to use this thread as a backdoor into something YOU want after you were told specifically by a mod not to do this.
LOL I think dcharleos forgot to put the text on beginning “ROC-British Joint Declaration” or “Taiwanese-British Joint Declaration” to explain more reasoning on how the right legitimate diplomatic contract look like on Hong Kong returned to ROC. I’ll explain to dcharleos what’s the meaning of point.
 
Top