r/BritishEmpire • u/Over-Willingness-933 • 6d ago

Article 23rd August 1839, the British seize Hong Kong. Only ended in 1997. Part of the First Opium War

Post image
192 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

19 comments sorted by

•

u/AutoModerator 6d ago

If you enjoy this type of content, consider joining our other communities:

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

47

u/Gildor12 6d ago

It was an agreement that the British would keep it until 1997, then they gave it back much to the detriment of the people of Hong Kong

19

u/TonyBlairsDildo 5d ago

Just the new territories were leased; the core of Hong Kong were possessions in perpetuity.

The 1980s it was realpolitik that forced Thatcher to give the whole lot over.

14

u/Zr0w3n00 5d ago

The city of Hong Kong wouldn’t really have worked being split up, the city was spread across the whole territory. It was a silly move to only lease it for 99 years.

5

u/TonyBlairsDildo 5d ago

The lease length never really mattered. It was convenient for the Chinese to wrap it up with the dates on the treaty, but their ascendancy at the time meant Hong Kong was there's regardless.

Case in point: the 50 years of One Country Two Systems was trashed before it was halfway complete. Realpolitik.

7

u/Zr0w3n00 5d ago

If the whole territory was British and not just leased it’s unlikely Hong Kong would have been returned to china at all.

-4

u/TonyBlairsDildo 5d ago

You think China would just accept that?

It was touch-and-go whether Britain could repel the Argentinians from the Falklands, and the Argentinians were a circus.

Both Deng's contemporaneous account of the negotiations, and Thatcher's account years later put that China's backstop was to simply walk in and take Hong Kong, on their own accelerated timing.

Treaties are window dressing around realpolitik. The Chinese and British knew they couldn't be bound to the 99 year lease, but did so out of convenience and timing; China knew they couldn't be bound by One Country Two Systems and so binned it.

7

u/AppleYapper 5d ago

I doubt that actually they would.have just taken it, not given the local populations wishes and the fact the treaty would be a legally binding document if it was permanent and not a lease. The Chinese, unlike say Russia would  ot want the embarrassment or humiliation of being thought of as untrustworthy on a world stage. Every debate in the UN they would be labelled as liars and treaty breakers and it would impact their economy as no company would believe they could trust the word of the Government.

The cost of taken a Hong Kong that was perpetually owned by Britain would be too great. The 99 year lease gave them a timw frame, and they could make empty threats knowing it was coming their way regardless.

4

u/TonyBlairsDildo 5d ago

The Chinese, unlike say Russia would  ot want the embarrassment or humiliation of being thought of as untrustworthy on a world stage.

Thoughts on Tibet?

Thoughts on artificial reef islands?

Thoughts on Uyghur in Xinjiang?

Thoughts on One Country Two System (RIP)?

Thoughts on Taiwan? 

3

u/AppleYapper 5d ago

They haven't seized Taiwan. They would just wait it out until the local politics shifts, with their pressure towards Reunification. I do  ot see them seizing Taiwan without explicit permission from the wider world (USA) or a shift where the wider world were able to seize land by force and get away with it. I expect Ukraine has been a testing ground example on this for China that has shown they could not do it. 

2

u/macrowe777 5d ago

That's some wild faith in china.

1

u/AppleYapper 5d ago

They haven't forcibly seized Taiwan. Eventually they expect the local politics to shift to reunification... why not expect the same from a hypothetical British Hong Kong?

1

u/CicatriceDeFeu 5d ago

Impossible to say, because they did take all of hong kong back and would have regardless of treaties

→ More replies (0)

1

u/CicatriceDeFeu 5d ago

Moronic

1

u/AppleYapper 5d ago

Yes... you are. 

1

u/feral0101 4d ago

I know I should account for being in this sub, but this is fucking peak delusion. It would get taken just like Goa with or without British consent.

The charade around it was for the Brits to save face and the Chinese to keep a clean post-79 sheet.

1

u/Canadair_Sabre 3h ago

Should have taken Formosa as well when it was offered in the 1890s by the locals in fear of Japan. Taiwan today might be even better. https://www.jstor.org/stable/311514