Why did they give it back

It's quite likely the Chinese would have taken it by force if they did not. And they would have been clearly justified in doing so.

Because Chinese people live there.

They live in Singapore too but I don't see that ever joining the PRC

It's different, Hong Kong has historically always been part of China.

>mfw thinking about a capitalistic non-Communist China

>PRC
>communist
The only thing communist about china is their extensive use of the color red.

One is literally connected to the mainland, the other is 2,000 miles away and only formed in the 1930's.

Why are you being purposefully retarded?

>always been part of China
>had to be given back
???

Distance is irrelevant in geopolitics.

Might as well ask here. Is there a name for hardcore China supporters/shills? You know, like vatnik or tankie but for China.

50 cent army, as in they get paid 50 cents per post.

>historically
Why are you acting illiterate?

>

I'm not acting illiterate, I'm asking how something can have historically always been a part of something if it historically had to be given back?

Okay, what about Macau? That was never part of the Qing empire.

>mfw thinking about a capitalist Russian Empire too

He obviously meant that it has always been historically a part of China up until the point that the British took it by force. Seriously, are you acting deliberately obtuse? This isn't hard to understand.

>In 214 BC the area of Hong Kong was incorporated into imperial China for the first time
>British Crown Colony, 1842-1997
Really makes you think...

After WW2, India's independence and the Suez crisis, public opinion towards colonialism plummeted and it was all but given that territories with minority British identifying populations would leave after a number of years. To postpone Hong Kong's independence the elites dug up the old 99 year lease and used that as the timetable.

Hong Kong's independence can be compared with Singapore's. Had it left during the "cultural revolution" it might have become fully independent or returned to the ROC.

and their gulags and state murder

>1997 was 25 years ago

>Sign deal with Empire of China
>Hold true to the terms of the deal with the Republic of China

Bad idea

you could just keep being reductive and claim China historically had Imperial dynasties, so the PRC should have to give China back to Quing descendants

>colonize swathes of China
>stop oppressing them
>give it all back

what were europeans thinking

>Modern China
>Communist
Choose one

No it's not. Croatia can't enact a geopolitical crisis to annex St. Petersburg because it's too far away to justify.

IIRC there was a plan floated half-seriously for a while to relocate the entire population of Hong Kong to Ireland

The only thing that improved with it was the flag, it's very nice

China basically said "give it to us or we're going to take it." China is a much bigger enemy than Argentina (and, unlike the Falklands, Hong Kong is close enough that China can easily use its zerg rush army) and Hong Kong is basically indefensible, so Thatcher basically decided realized China was going to get it back one way or the other.

Really? Looks like this changed and Britain gave up on honour.

People are also forgetting that the Indians simply took Goa by force from the Portugese, and Portugal couldn't invoke Article V because it only applies to Europe and North America + Hawaii.

>capitalistic non-Communist China
So Taiwan? It may be "better", but its people are just as, if not more, reprehensible than the mainlanders.

All the "China but also kinda not" flags (Macau, Taiwan) are really nice.

>China historically had Imperial dynasties, so the PRC should have to give China back to Quing descendants
Except both the last rightful and puppet Qing emperors legally abdicated and handed the state over to the govt in power.

>Portugal couldn't invoke Article V because it only applies to Europe and North America + Hawaii

No it fucking doesn't

nato.int/cps/cn/natohq/topics_110496.htm

> The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all

NATO specifically excludes the rest of the world because America was not going to go to war over European colonies.

BTFO

>tfw you'll never be a western expat growing up in your comfy upper class bubble in exotic Asia

No, in fact Thatcher called out Jiang Zemin for this.

>Then the whole world would know the true face of the CCP

The funniest thing to me is that in the 1970's when the Brits started thinking about how HK's lease was going to expire soon that was when they decided to implement democratic reforms and home rule for Hong Kongers. Prior to that it had been run by an unelected governor general. I imagine the hope was that democracy would take there and perhaps eventually spread (or simply destabilize) the rest of China.

>colonization was horrible, all those universities, sewers, power grids and literacy

Because the idiots who brokered the original deal assumed that they'd be able to get a similar deal a century later, that the UK would be just as powerful and China just as weak.

The only thing stopping Croatia is man-power, and force projection, not the magical idea that land automatically belongs to whomever that is is closest to.

Just like Danzig had always been a part of Germany until it too was taken by force? Guess Hitler was in the right to start a war over it then!

The point is that appealing to "we've always owned this, it's historical!", is meaningless bullshit that states only use to justify their conquests. Since some ancient Chinese warlord allegedly conquered it a thousand years ago that somehow means that someone who conquered it a hundred years ago is morally obligated to give it back.

Giving Hong Kong to Red China using the justification that they're related by history is like handing over a child to it's junkie mother because they're related by blood. It's legalism masquerading as moralism all to justify and clothe Red China's naked aggression and desire to expand. We can already see them appealing to the same rhetoric as they justify their claims in the South China Sea, and I will not be surprised if they eventually use their alleged history as justification for the domination of Asia in it's entirety based on the logic that they're all just rogue Chinese vassal states.

it's a legitimate causis belli in europa tho

>desire to expand
>taking back their land and having the force to do so after the Eternal Anglo got their empire BTFO after WW2 and colonialism had lost its political support

Why didn't the bongs just give it to Taiwan/ROC instead? It would have been a clever way to give the finger to the mainlanders while still staying true to the treaty.

I almost feel like Nixon made a mistake when he normalized relations with the PRC because in doing so he ended up shafting an actual ally.

China is pretty much capitalist at this point.

Then the PRC would still just have taken it by force. The American treaty with Taiwan only protects the island itself and a couple surrounding islands.

Lad hong kongers fucking hate the ccp hough and have been fighting tooth and nail for open elections since early 2005. Only chinks want HK ruled by chinks. Everyone else prefers the old HK, even HK citizens, despite it being a literal dictatorship ran by a british high commisioner for 150 years

Britain was allways very retarded when it came to honour and dept. They took the whole 19th century to pay of the Napoleonic Wars to the last dime instead of just vaporising it at some point like the French did.

Like I said, "meaningless bullshit that states only use to justify their conquests".

Hong Kong has immigration controls and keeps out mainlander chinese.

>hong kongers
>not chinks
They can pretend to be white all they want but they're all chinks whether they like it or not.

>Everyone else prefers the old HK, even HK citizens, despite it being a literal dictatorship ran by a british high commisioner for 150 years

Fuck no. They want to be independent and old Hk wasn't nice either. You make it seem like you can only hate ccp and love the brits when most would not want to be under Brutish rule.

Those "we want Britain back" protests are small and done by dumb young people who were never even alive or toddlers during british rule

When not dealing ng with China Kongers cheastbeat and act like dicks towards non Chinese of lower prestige if possible.

America gets an honest 10/10 for that clause Imo since Euros would abuse the Bath if it didn't.

I feel like the stars should be white too

Its more correct to say most Hong Kongers dont give a fuck as long as they are left alone.

Whether Hong Kong is coloured red on a world atlas to denote ownership or not is irrelevent so long as they get to continue doing what they do.

Only a very tiny dillusional part of the Hong Kong youth want independence. Most just want to be left alone in their quasi democratic and capitalist island.

-t Am of Cantonese descent

Nixon HAD to normalize with the PRC, otherwise Mao would have eventually gotten his hands on nukes and triggered a fucking nuclear holocaust.

PRC had nukes since the 60's though.

They're not going to be left alone, that's the whole point. Their deadline for integration into mainland China is arriving, and they've already outlawed any political parties that disagree with Chinese unification.

>Thatcher
>Jiang
???

Weren't they 4 years apart?

>and they've already outlawed any political parties that disagree with Chinese unification.

1. Wrong
2. Hong Kong is already unified with China.
3. How are traitors who demand secession dealt with in most nations? They are imprisoned or killed.

The PRC had nukes way before Nixon, idiot.

>3. How are traitors who demand secession dealt with in most nations? They are imprisoned or killed.
Americans think you should cry over them and build memorials to honor them.

A 500 year lease? Why not a 6billion year lease?

>Hong Cuck: "Boohoo things were way better under the UK. They cared for us!"
>Handed you back to PRC without a fight