I was actually starting to see reasonable conversations about the Rafale and other topics on French matters until he reappeared.

Simple question: how was Britain going to supply HK well enough to feed & defend itself, let alone use it to expand the war?

 

Get out a map. Have a look at where HK is. From the end of 1941 until probably the end of 1943 the IJN was the most powerful navy between Sri lanka & Los Angeles. There was even a genuine fear Japanese troops might appear in Vichy-controlled Madagascar. Until the destructive naval battles of 1943 & in particular 1944 the IJN was still a powerful force in the Western Pacific & Sth China sea. Until October 1944 Taiwan remained a staging post for IJN air & naval units.HK remained within range of Japanese air units based in China throughout the war. Any resupply route to HK similarly remained within range of Japanese air units based in Singapore, Indonesia, Indochina & Malaya - all of which remained in Japanese hands until the surrender in 1945.

 

Now, remind me again how Britain is actually going to get any supplies to HK between the end of 1941 & the signing of the armistice in 1945. (I'll leave the rest of the fantasy alone, though the idea of using HK to supply China or Vietnam overland is funny in a sad sort of way). 

I don't have a simple answer.

If there was a simple answer then someone would have made it at the time.

 

All i was supposing was a escalation of the conflict from India through Burma (England's forgotten front) then using this push to open up an air corrider to Chinese Nationalist, already fighting but without enough resources.

 

As for supplies, resources from Australia, New Zealand and India could have been diverted from Europe and North Africa.

What does any of this have to do with Hong Kong? What does holding HK have to do with India or Burma?

 

And you still haven't answered how HK can be supplied. How do the supplies PHYSICALLY GET THERE?? I really don't think you have the slightest idea what you are talking about. Feel free to prove me wrong.

well, India and the Burma corridor into China and Vietnam are the only avenues open to supply goods overland, so that is there importance.

 

As for supply, this would be carried on foot, by cart, or by beast - much like the Ho Chi Minh trail, and we all know how well that worked against a occupying force...

 

take some time to think outside the square, it's what wasn't done by the british 70 years ago.

 

I can't prove you wrong, that would require a Deloren, all i am presenting is a possible alternative. So show some personal restraint and either present a arguement of your own - or shut up.

 

The British commanders in the far east were amongst the worst in the British and Indian Armies. The troops were really no more than garrison troops with all the bad connotations of that kind of force: totally unprepared to fight against anything other than "Fuzzie Wuzzies". No chance at all against the seasoned veterans of the Japanese army.

 

To get an idea as to how poor the leadership and training was, I suggest that you read Bill Slim's autobiography of the war in Burma (Defeat into Victory). It covers the retreat from Burma and the ill executed Arakan campaign as well as recounting how he turned it all around.

I can't prove you wrong, that would require a Deloren, all i am presenting is a possible alternative. So show some personal restraint and either present a arguement of your own - or shut up.

well i think you nailed it. It is pure fantasy. We're 70 years past the time for reality. If we stick to the limitations of your thinking... and think soley around HK and not  a greater commitment to the far Eastern theatre then you and history will hold true. Hong Kong will fall.

 

There is no logical way HK could have held out, with the limited supplies they had, and the limited force structure.

 

There you go, we can end the discussion here. Or, we can bring alternate realities into this. Once we bring alternate realities into any historical revision, all the limitations of perceived are fluid... whether that be a wild idea to hump supplies overland thru burma, landing covert supplies by sub, or making the allies invisible - they all fall into fantasy because they didn't happen.

 

So whatever alternative people post up here is going to be somewhat of a fantasy nature.

 

Now do you understand? Or do you still think somehow you can change history?

Gentlemen, gentlemen, please enough acrimony. However, you have both identified the key issue: resupply. Since the Jpanese controlled the sea and land passages, resupply was next to impossible. Even if they were supplied by submarine, it would not be sufficient and then there was the civilian population to consider.

 

HK did not have the stores that Singapore did; despite this, Churchill  ordered HK to fight regardless of the suffering of the civilian population and of casualties. In my view, the Brits should have made the combat last a lot longer, inflict a lot more casualties on the Japs, but in the end, they would have to surrender.

 

OK, you still don't get it. I won't waste any more time on you.