‘Protect the people of hong Kong’?
You mean follow the treaty they signed ages ago?
You mean follow the treaty they signed ages ago?
Whether that would have protected the people of Hong Kong is another matter. I think at the time people were still optimistic about the direction China was taking and they might have thought China would be a democracy by 2047.
It’s honestly amazing that China didn’t apply more ‘direct’ pressure to get HK bad sooner. There is nothing the UK likely would have done about it. Bad for business I guess? Macau transferred over around the same time.
The Qing dynasty ‘remnants’ in Taiwan would have just been steamrolled if they’d gone anywhere near it. And not like there was any real cultural reason why HK’ers would accept them anyway, or that the Qing were well loved. CCP steamrolled them in mainland China like they did because they were, by all accounts, terrible.
Sometimes, life just sucks.
Oh no, I definitely don't think that.
>It’s honestly amazing that China didn’t apply more ‘direct’ pressure to get HK bad sooner. There is nothing the UK likely would have done about it. Bad for business I guess? Macau transferred over around the same time.
The 80-90's were a bit too early to take such a risk I think, now they wouldn't take such a deal. The British likely got the best deal they could get.
>The Qing dynasty ‘remnants’ in Taiwan would have just been steamrolled if they’d gone anywhere near it. And not like there was any real cultural reason why HK’ers would accept them anyway, or that the Qing were well loved. CCP steamrolled them in mainland China like they did because they were, by all accounts, terrible.
The Republic of China government is no more (or less) a Qing dynasty remnant than the CCP is. They were indeed terrible, but that's a long time a go, most people involved are dead by now and the country has changed a lot. The CCP on the other hand is going back to the Mao era.
The civil war took two decades, in which the Kuomintang nearly defeated the Communists and had to fight off the Japanese while the Communists got bankrolled by the Soviets. I'd hardly call that steamrolled.
Or that it’s ever been about ‘protecting’ anyone when the British Crown fights anyone over territory? As compared to asserting ownership?
Not to mention the UK nearly lost it’s fight with Argentina - it wouldn’t even be pissing in the wind to go to war with China over Hong Kong.
They lost 6 ships (including 2 destroyers and 2 frigates), 24 helicopters, and 10 fighters + 255 KIA in the debacle. If the french hadn’t disabled those missiles, it would have been an even bigger mess. Do you think the UK gov’t wants to admit they got saved by the French?
If Argentina had their act even a little more together, or had even a little more commitment, there is nothing the UK could have done about it - except maybe nuke Buenos Aires. Which would probably have been a step too far, even for Thatcher.
Argentina was expecting zero resistance and got embarrassed they lost ships and soldiers too, and pulled out because it was making the Argentinian gov’t look bad.
But it was also really embarrassing for the UK. They had more losses there than they did fighting the Gulf War alongside the US.
In fact, since Northern Ireland, it took Afghanistan to even come close - and that was over a period of 10 years compared to ~ 6 months. [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6605529d91a32...]
As to how they think that has anything to do with their points, it doesn’t of course - and the UK agreed, which is why they left. Also, because it’s not like the UK had any other choice.
The argument that it shouldn’t have gone to the CCP was one I heard from someone who lived there.
Taiwan is democratic today, because of transitional justice, but at the time when the PRC succeeded the ROC in China, the nationalists led by Chiang were as dictatorial as you can get