|
Oracle posted:You've just watched too many Wong Fei Hung remakes, is all. No! Jackie Chan and Stephen Chow both show the same trope in their period movies. Through Jet Li's The Bodyguard is when I first notice the nationalist propaganda, Jet Li really loves his country. It seems like any Chong era stories are eligible for this cliche, because as you guys were talking about earlier, the humiliating era of the long braids is popular culture/propaganda. The Cantonese/Mandarin thing, I thought it didn't matter? Like a movie/tv series would have scenes where the actors spoke in different dialects to each other, and it was fixed up later? A Taiwanese friend told me this, they make the worst stuff, so maybe he's wrong.
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 17:10 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I think the brits could probably have made a go of it. The logistics part would be the hardest, HK was selected because it's defensible and that hasn't changed. It's not like 1980s PLAA could have stopped the RAF from bombing whatever it wanted whenever, and that means no artillery, which means no advantage for the PLA at all. Imagine if the PLA had found out its tank doctrine was flaming rear end on its own against TOW2s and Challengers instead of by proxy. Human wave attacks would have been something to see in the modern firepower age. I think it would have been a competition to see if the British could kill enough Chinese conscripts to make Beijing blink before they ran out of ammunition. 1980ies RAF, deployed inside Hong Kong, not having trouble against the loving Chinese air force next door? Being able to take out all chinese artillery? What 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
The PLAAF was pretty bad on paper at the time, and probably nothing like as strong as it looked on paper. I think it would have been something like the Six Day War where one side which is theoretically overmatched has real forces going up against forces that look large (if lovely) on paper but turn out to barely function. That's why I say it would have been a race to run the Brits out of ammo before casualties became too embarrassing for the PLA. I know it's a kind of out-there theory but supposedly powerful militaries have been outed as paper tigers before and the PLA ~1980s fits the bill pretty well. Large but obsolete, decaying institutional competence, questionable leadership.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:1980ies RAF, deployed inside Hong Kong, not having trouble against the loving Chinese air force next door? Being able to take out all chinese artillery? What You vastly overestimate the quality of the Chinese Air Force. Arglebargle III posted:The PLAAF was pretty bad on paper at the time, and probably nothing like as strong as it looked on paper. I think it would have been something like the Six Day War where one side which is theoretically overmatched has real forces going up against forces that look large (if lovely) on paper but turn out to barely function. That's why I say it would have been a race to run the Brits out of ammo before casualties became too embarrassing for the PLA. There's very little a massive tide of soldiers can do against superior air, naval, and artillery other then die by the thousands. The logistics of China trying to bring enough of its Army to bear wrt supply chain issues would be a massive clusterfuck, and certainly give the British time to bear down and hammer them with their air power/naval power. It would certainly be a logistical nightmare, and quickly turn into a slog that neither nation would want. The UK was all rah rah rah for the Falklands war, but they might not be as eager for daily videos and images of British troops mowing down Chinese teens like something out of Zulu. Eventually, yeah, maybe the Chinese could mount an offensive so large that even losing 2/3 of their men they manage to invade and occupy HK. The collateral devastation would probably wreck most of HK's economic potential as well, and China would win and get a burned out husk of a city as a reward. pentyne fucked around with this message at 06:29 on Jun 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
edit: double post
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 06:28
|
|
|
Guys, the only reason Mao didn't take HK back from the Brits in the 50s and 60s because he wanted to leave a backdoor negotiation channel with the western camp while he duke out the international Communist supremacy with the Russkies. The PLA can causally liberate HK in a few days. It's all about keeping your enemies closer. By the 70s, Mao was dying slowly and Forrest Gump was playing ping pong in China. whatever7 fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Jun 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
I also don't know if the UK could've projected force that far in the 1980's without US assistance, and the US probably wouldn't be keen to help.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
pentyne posted:The collateral devastation would probably wreck most of HK's economic potential as well, and China would win and get a burned out husk of a city as a reward. Perhaps that may have been the more humane solution https://www.facebook.com/hbictv
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
I think you misunderstand my objection, I'm not saying the PLA was hot poo poo or anything but that doesn't mean the British could achieve superiority in anything. I mean, NATO air power couldn't neutralize *Serbias* ground forces in the mid 90ies, I don't see how the British would fare better even if they somehow could deploy the entire RAF to Hong Kong. And China could shut that down using nothing but MiG 15s, crashing into the runways (never mind rocket/missile artillery). Chinese "Human Wave" tactics is a bit of a myth from the Korean war anyhow. Infiltration tactics will gently caress up static defense lines with little depth or fall-back options.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
Femur posted:Through Jet Li's The Bodyguard is when I first notice the nationalist propaganda, Jet Li really loves his country. He renounced his citizenship and is now Singaporean. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:He renounced his citizenship and is now Singaporean. Man, is nothing real? I mean for him to drive across that bridge away from Cecilia, my brain immediately screamed, for all that to be a lie..
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
whatever7" posted:Guys, the only reason Mao didn't take HK back from the Brits in the 50s and 60s because he wanted to leave a backdoor negotiation channel with the western camp while he duke out the international Communist supremacy with the Russkies. The PLA can causally liberate HK in a few days. It's all about keeping your enemies closer. In the 50s and 60s China didn't have the naval forces necessary to control the sea around Hong Kong. And that would have been an essential pre-requisite for any kind of takeover. A single frigate doing ship to shore bombardment is the equivalent of an entire battery with all of their guns blazing and at that time the RN could easily have fielded half a dozen frigates at little notice, with capital ships able to steam in after a day or two. And then there's the Aussies and the Kiwis, they helped us out a couple of times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia%E2%80%93Malaysia_confrontation I don't think it would have been that simple to have taken HK.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
Perhaps more pertinently China was a nuclear armed communist power during the Cold War and might have been crazy enough to nuke a British fleet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
GuestBob posted:In the 50s and 60s China didn't have the naval forces necessary to control the sea around Hong Kong. And that would have been an essential pre-requisite for any kind of takeover. I think that was a joke 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Perhaps more pertinently China was a nuclear armed communist power during the Cold War and might have been crazy enough to nuke a British fleet. It would be funny to see them nuke Hong Kong, wiping out everything they had hoped to gain and taking Shenzhen with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
Did Shenzhen even really exist back then?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
Jeoh posted:Did Shenzhen even really exist back then? Shenzhen had its 30th birthday party in 2010.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
Jeoh posted:Did Shenzhen even really exist back then? It grew explosively from 1980 so yeah, but not yet the monster city is now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 08:18
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:It would be funny to nuke Hong Kong, wiping out everything and taking Shenzhen with it. A good post.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
Clearly guys, Hong Kong should have been repatriated to the legitimate government, the Republic of China (Taiwan). Now PRC can't take it without provoking war with the US. A hilarious troll, you have to agree. (Also a major international incident but lets ignore that for a moment)
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
That would have been an incredible troll. If only it could've been done without mass death and chaos.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 09:58
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:Political cartoonists react The second cartoonist just had his facebook closed, according to the Apple Daily. They're blaming this particular cartoon. Which, sorry for not translating, shows the two communists talking about how dumb the frogs are for still not noticing they're being boiled to death, while stoking the fires with One Country, Two Systems and the Sino-British Joint Declaration. The one on top is tearing up the Basic Law, Hong Kong's constitution, with the recent white paper inside.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 10:58
|
|
|
I'm phone posting so I can't write much, but China used Hong Kong as a smuggling back channel for during the 50s. Foreign currency, antibiotics, medical supplies, scientific equipment and what not was shipped through Hong Kong. Throughout the 50s to 70s immigrants from China would buy lots of house hold items in general stores in Hong Kong. Pots, pans, hot water thermos and other things were shipped to China. The flow of goods stopped by the end of mid 70s and businessesmen in Hong Kong started moving to China and start manufacturing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 13:09
|
|
|
China could have just nuked HK and let a bunch of people from Zhejiang and Yanan move in since they wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
pentyne posted:You vastly overestimate the quality of the Chinese Air Force. pentyne posted:You vastly overestimate the quality of the Chinese Air Force. If you think the supply lines for China would be bad think about how bad the supply lines would be for the UK. The US would stage such an action from Japan and S Korea but the UK would steam up from where exactly? Furthermore without decent carrier support, British naval assets would be easy targets for Chinese land based aircraft. The logistical challenges would be absolutely nightmarish. British forces in HK would be cut off from reinforcements and resupply and I doesn't matter how much of a joke PLA forces were in the 80's it would be easy to encircle and destroy forces stranded on HK.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
Non-sense, they would be supplied by steamer from bases in Ceylon, India and Australia. What do you mean, the Empire doesn't exist anymore? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
Just look at Japan taking HK in WWII
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Just look at Japan taking HK in WWII The key point I think is that Japan had a pretty dominant Navy in WWII and could project power into HK and supply a forays into the rest of Asia while cutting of access to other countries. So it could basically attack at will all over Asia. The UK at present day doesn't have a real credible navy that can do this and so cannot resupply over such a long distance and certainly cannot control the theatre like Japan did in WWII. Comedy option launch invasion from Singapore. Sorry Brits, your empire has diminished in the past century.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
No I meant even back in the good old Empire days HK got steamrollered. Fast forward to the 80s when the military was in a sorrier state (I am still shocked at the Falklands losses numbers) and now make it so instead of coming from Japan, an invading force just walks over some hills to cross the border, and then tell me how defensible HK is and how the British would have been able to win
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Just look at Japan taking HK in WWII France had the Maginot Line, Germany had the Siegfried Line, HK had the Gin Drinker's Line
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
Is masturbating to a hypothetical shooting war between the PLA and UK what white expats do in their spare time
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
The problem during WWII was that British forces in Hong Kong were under strength (Gin Drinker's Line was designed to accommodate many times the actual force stationed there, though let's not ignore its significant design flaws), under-trained (a bunch of farmers from rural Quebec and Manitoba sent as reinforcements), and under-powered (RAF Kai Tak had like what, two planes?). Plus the whole "lol Nips, Asians who think they can fight!" attitude. Britain's policy in the twenties was "Hong Kong is hosed if attacked, rebase everyone to Imperial Fortress Singapore" until Churchill reversed this decision in the thirties to deter Japan. By then it was too late.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Is masturbating to a hypothetical shooting war between the PLA and UK what white expats do in their spare time Seems like it until you realize most of the people doing it don't even live in China they're just talking even more out of their rear end than you thought.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
simplefish posted:No I meant even back in the good old Empire days HK got steamrollered. Fast forward to the 80s when the military was in a sorrier state (I am still shocked at the Falklands losses numbers) and now make it so instead of coming from Japan, an invading force just walks over some hills to cross the border, and then tell me how defensible HK is and how the British would have been able to win Something was going on in the UK in 1942 but I can't quite remember what...
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
Imperialist Dog posted:The problem during WWII was that British forces in Hong Kong were under strength (Gin Drinker's Line was designed to accommodate many times the actual force stationed there, though let's not ignore its significant design flaws), under-trained (a bunch of farmers from rural Quebec and Manitoba sent as reinforcements), and under-powered (RAF Kai Tak had like what, two planes?). Plus the whole "lol Nips, Asians who think they can fight!" attitude. Well look how Singapore turned out. Actually wasn't that a huge debacle? Japan feinted or something and wound up steamrolling he entirety of British forces there way too easily. And yes I think it's really unfair to expect the British to mount any sort of real defense in WWII. Britain was in being pressured all over its empire not the least in its homeland. HK must have been pretty low on the priority list. Vladimir Putin fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Jun 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
So I know very little about modern China. How is Hong Kong viewed by Mainlanders? How is the Mainland viewed by Hong Kongers? How are both viewed by Western expats?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
blueyedevil posted:So I know very little about modern China. How is Hong Kong viewed by Mainlanders? How is the Mainland viewed by Hong Kongers? How are both viewed by Western expats? The short version is mainlainders think the British wouldn't have stood a chance against the PLA in a shooting war in the 80s. Hong Kongers usually say while they wish they were still part of the Empire, they're just glad it never escalated to nuclear war.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
blueyedevil posted:So I know very little about modern China. How is Hong Kong viewed by Mainlanders? How is the Mainland viewed by Hong Kongers? How are both viewed by Western expats? Hong Kong is analogous to Tibet for mainlanders except they hear about it more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
Shopping.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 17:10 |
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Well look how Singapore turned out. Actually wasn't that a huge debacle? Japan feinted or something and wound up steamrolling he entirety of British forces there way too easily. Also the ground commanders in Singapore sat on their asses instead of pre-empting the Japanese ground forces while they were still forming up in Thailand. (This is in spite of the fact that detailed plans had been drawn up to do exactly this.) Had either of those things turned out differently there's a good chance Singapore could have held out. Plus the British were short of experienced officers, battle-hardened troops, and quality aircraft all of which the Japanese had in spades.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 05:21
|
|
