Really? No one had reason to be wary of the nation that started 2 of the most destructive wars in Earth’s history?
In the mid-80s, to Americans, Germany was divided and it seemed it always would be, thinking otherwise seemed foolish, like believing in fairies. However, West Germans insisted on calling Bonn the temporary capital, and said that Germany would be one again. As the decade progressed, soon was added to that prediction. Graffiti carried slogans including, you want Glastnost (Openness) then tear down the Wall. Germany was all along poised to reunite.
Why would Thatcher favour German reunification, that could go horribly wrong (Western Germany’s economy collapses from trying to incorporate its dirt poor neighbour, what a disaster that would have been!), when she could continue to engage with Gorbachev, a relative moderate (glasnost?) who had reoriented Soviet strategy toward the West, and potentially aim for a gradual dismantling of the USSR?
Besides, it wasn’t only Thatcher who had these misgivings, as the article makes clear. Mitterand also didn’t want to see German reunification.
Not at that point; Shame was keen over the Nazis. The big news in West German politics was massive protests decrying the horror of nuclear weapons on German soil. Note the weapons were not in German hands.
Forget about Eastern Europe. Thatcher’s shameful role in selling Hong Kong to China proved she put profits ahead of freedom - including the freedom of people who she was supposed to be protecting.
What Britain got reunified?
What?..
It is not surprising that people in power did not want massive change that was unpredictable in its effect, especially when a large part of their re-election strategy was they were tough enough to deal with the big bad commies.
Doubtful. Remember, this was only 35-odd years after World War II; most of the British public were alive during the war, even if a lot of them were too young to remember most of it. In any case, Britain was already far from being an economic power by the beginning of Thatcher’s time in office. The economic boom of the 1960s had long since passed, and between the oil crisis and the wholesale implosion of the economy in the 70s, Britain was barely solvent. Staying ahead of the Germans would not have been high on Thatcher’s list of economic priorities.
The British public did get a say in whether or not to join Europe. They elected a Parliament which said it would ratify the Maastricht Treaty, and it did. Well, eventually.
What else could she do? Go to war with China?
45, actually.
Oops. 1989.
Well, China had no right whatsoever to the island, just the new territories. And I think legally they had no right to those either, as the Maoist regime repudiated all foreign treaties.
How, practically, we couldn’t hold on to Hong Kong. But what we could have realistically done before hading over the people to one of the world’s most oppressive regimes is…
Given every resident of Hong Kong joint citizenship.
That’s precisely what we would have done if it had been white people living there.
:dubious: All 6.5 million of them? A tenth of our population?
Yes. All 6.5 million of them. It is extremely unlikely any significant percentage would have chosen to come to the UK.
I’d completely forgotten that Dennis Miller was actually funny once.
Britain in 1989 was booming, the country was transformed economically in the decade since the 1970s. No matter what the British people might have thought about German reunification it’s the government that make the decisions and German reunification was always something viewed as inevitable by European governments no matter their public stance. There were a few squeaks from the odd European leader about how a reunited Germany may be a bad thing but no serious opposition from anybody, not even Thatcher. British people would overwhelmingly vote against further union with Europe, joining the single currency etc. Labour won in 1997 despite them promising to ratify Masstricht, not because of it. Voters’ concerns in 1997 were to kick the sleazy Tories out of office.
If there really was a risk that China’s oppressive regime was going to clamp down on freedoms in Hong Kong, post handover, then how can you say with any certainty that a large percentage wouldn’t have chosen to leave for the UK? On the contrary, it seems the very reason you’d want to give everybody in Hong Kong British citizenship would be the very same reason a large number of Hong Kong residents would choose to leave, no?
And note that this made them targets for a first strike, or a retalitory one. If you’re the one who gets blown up first, the fact that you have no control over the weapons makes it worse, not better. That doesn’t do much for their pacifist credibility.
I remember the time period, and reunification is only obviously right in hindsight.
I cannot say with certainty. And it is a further indictment of British policy towards Hong Kong that there weren’t more freedoms to be clamped down on. Moving country isn’t something people do on a whim - it is a major commitment. And possession of a foreign passport has often been sufficient to save an individual’s life or freedom from an oppressive regime.
Obviously I have no cite for it, but a friend was part of the FO group involved in this whole debacle, and the FO did not think it would result in significant numbers of immigrants to the UK. I guess one more non-white was too many for that evil bitch.
Doesn’t invalidate your point, though – people with childhood memories of the Blitz wouldn’t have yet reached retirement age.