British Hawaii
- Thread starter Wolfhound
- Start date
David S Poepoe
Banned
It certainly would have been easy, tho not without some dislike within the US. One could speculate that with a British Hawaii the US would have been offered access to Pearl Harbor in the 1940s as part of the 'Lend-Lease' Agreement. The islands would be a mesh of Anglo-American cultures, tho the native Hawaiian aspect would still very prevalent - much more than OTL.
Tonga is a very good example to consider and also Fiji. Tonga is the better since does remain the only Polynesian monarchy in the Pacific. There would have been a British 'Resident' that would advise the Hawaiian king and queens.
Tonga is a very good example to consider and also Fiji. Tonga is the better since does remain the only Polynesian monarchy in the Pacific. There would have been a British 'Resident' that would advise the Hawaiian king and queens.
Turtledove's already done that; TEH Ev0L jAPPs!!!1!!! are driven back by the US Marines...
Simon
America would most likely still be blocking the exports of oil to Japan, unless butterflies change this. The Japanese would have to edge closer to attack Americansky, or farther, assuming theres still a Spanish-American War, we get American Phillipines - They hit there harder.
Unless the lack of Hawaii means the Americans doubt their supply capabilities for the Phillipines so they don't get them and give them independance or something. Who knows? Maybe they get it anyway? Who knows.
Unless the lack of Hawaii means the Americans doubt their supply capabilities for the Phillipines so they don't get them and give them independance or something. Who knows? Maybe they get it anyway? Who knows.
Geopolitically, no Hawaii likely means no Samoa, no Guam, no Micronesia, and no Philippines for the US.
The US was a major player in the Pacific even before the scramble for colonies began. Imperialists in the US would have been very cross that all these islands were gobbled up by Britain. The US was having simultaneous border disagreements with Britain over Guyana/Venezuela and Alaska/British Columbia. This would have added to those conflicts, although I doubt that it could butterfly into outright war or anything like that.
Just looking at the Pacific's geography, there are few places for the uS to go if Hawaii is off limits. Midway and the Line Islands can serve as bases, I suppose. But the US's capacity to dominate the Pacific is definitely diminished. They may have still attacked Manilla in 1898 (it was awfully easy), but maybe this TL switches the status of the Philippines and Cuba - independence for the former, territory status for the latter. The US leases a small bay in the Philippines for use as a Navy base...
The US was a major player in the Pacific even before the scramble for colonies began. Imperialists in the US would have been very cross that all these islands were gobbled up by Britain. The US was having simultaneous border disagreements with Britain over Guyana/Venezuela and Alaska/British Columbia. This would have added to those conflicts, although I doubt that it could butterfly into outright war or anything like that.
Just looking at the Pacific's geography, there are few places for the uS to go if Hawaii is off limits. Midway and the Line Islands can serve as bases, I suppose. But the US's capacity to dominate the Pacific is definitely diminished. They may have still attacked Manilla in 1898 (it was awfully easy), but maybe this TL switches the status of the Philippines and Cuba - independence for the former, territory status for the latter. The US leases a small bay in the Philippines for use as a Navy base...
David S Poepoe
Banned
Most replies regarding the US in the Pacific without Hawaii are wrong.
Hawaii in fact was one of the last acquisitions by the US in the Pacific. Samoa was acquired before 1893. The Philippines and Guam were acquired via the Spanish-American War and everyone should know that Dewey was operating the Asiatic Squadron out of Hong Kong without any US Far East Base. The islands of Midway and Wake were US possessions since the mid-19th century, tho I think that Midway was also claimed by Hawaii since it is part of the extended Hawaiian islands chain.
Near the turn of the 19th century and the early 20th century the US was seeking to secure its own 'treaty port' from China and I believe that they were considering the port of Amoy, but the Japanese protested.
Acquisition of Micronesia came about via the Second World War.
Its highly likely that some sort of collision is in the works for Japanese-American affairs in the early 20th century. The US has been interested in trade with China since about the 1840s, if not earlier. The Chinese market is just huge and everyone is interested in getting into it.
Realistically, its unlikely that Japan would acquired the Hawaiian Islands strictly due to its predominate interest in expanding in its region.
Hawaii in fact was one of the last acquisitions by the US in the Pacific. Samoa was acquired before 1893. The Philippines and Guam were acquired via the Spanish-American War and everyone should know that Dewey was operating the Asiatic Squadron out of Hong Kong without any US Far East Base. The islands of Midway and Wake were US possessions since the mid-19th century, tho I think that Midway was also claimed by Hawaii since it is part of the extended Hawaiian islands chain.
Near the turn of the 19th century and the early 20th century the US was seeking to secure its own 'treaty port' from China and I believe that they were considering the port of Amoy, but the Japanese protested.
Acquisition of Micronesia came about via the Second World War.
Its highly likely that some sort of collision is in the works for Japanese-American affairs in the early 20th century. The US has been interested in trade with China since about the 1840s, if not earlier. The Chinese market is just huge and everyone is interested in getting into it.
Realistically, its unlikely that Japan would acquired the Hawaiian Islands strictly due to its predominate interest in expanding in its region.
David S Poepoe
Banned
Unlikely since the Japanese were busy expanding their sphere of influence in the Far East. Japanese warships did not have the bunkerage to carry coal for the distance to Hawaii. Also they didn't have the interest.
Paramount, and the major hurdle as mentioned before, is the large American population that would have raised both alarm and probably arms against any Japanese acquisition. Besides there was an treaty from the 1840s or 50s committing the US, France and Britain to observing Hawaii's neutrality and/or independence.
So if the British looked like taking it over, would a US-French alliance go to war over the issue? After all circum 1880 France nearly went to war with Britain over Sudan.
Faeelin
Banned
My objection, though, is that the Japanese can't reach a fleet based in America; the Philippines, meanwhile, is sufficiently close to Japan that things look really weird.
I suppose a war that plays out with america basing from the British Hawaiian Islands is possible, but it does seem harder...
David S Poepoe
Banned
Not likely. Geopolitics in the Pacific have always been different than that of Africa or Europe. French interest in Hawaii, aside from religious rights for the Catholics there, were minimal.
Baskilisk
Banned
A Franco-American Alliance fighting the British in the 1840's seems like an interesting, unobserved perspective. Certainly a lot of Civil War issues...Plus you still have powers like Spain that haven't truly declined yet. It would be interesting to see how that plays out.
Edit: I don't need to spam, but my idea i just said is redirected into a post here: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=112303
Last edited:
I was actually thinking of a bit later, but a clash of gunboats in the Pacific at anytime might be interesting.
Of course the British could time it for the ACW when their principle adversary is well and truly tied up with other matters!!
The French are unlikely to go it alone and by the time they could get round to it the Americans would be faced with it all done and dusted.Hmm, I didn't know that. Thank you. I knew Britian and the US were involved in Hawaii's politics(just look at their flag), but never knew France was involved.
So when the US annexed Hawaii, why didn't Britian and France intervene then? Just curious.
I do know the Hawaiian Kings seem to have favored the UK..They even signed a treaty in 1846 which both nations recognized each other.
Here is the Treaty: http://www.hawaiiankingdom.org/treaty_britain-1846.shtml
So do not think the Uk. would have made Hawaii part of there Empire. But they would have maintained strong ties. Even one of the Russian Emperors recognized the Hawaiian King has ruler of Hawaii. Story below.
Read on it: http://www.colonialvoyage.com/russhawaii.html.
Do know that after the Russian had to leave Hawaii that one of the Russians in charge of the Russian American Company wanted the Russian government to send a force. But he was turned down.The Russian Emperor recognized the King of Hawaii has the legal ruler of Hawaii so nothing came of it.
Midway island is not part of the State of Hawaii even though it belongs to that island chain.
American Samoa was not officially part of the US until June1900.
Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Samoan_Civil_War
War was settled by the 1899 Treaty of Berlin.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And the US had other islands in the Pacific which they had gotten under the [/FONT]U.S. Guano Island Act of 1856. Any US citizen who found an unclaimed island could claim it if it had Guano. Guano was big business years back.
Info. on the Guano Act: http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/guanoisland.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano_Islands_Act
Map of US Pacific Guano Islands: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/maps/um-map.gif
Here is the Treaty: http://www.hawaiiankingdom.org/treaty_britain-1846.shtml
So do not think the Uk. would have made Hawaii part of there Empire. But they would have maintained strong ties. Even one of the Russian Emperors recognized the Hawaiian King has ruler of Hawaii. Story below.
In time they established a trading post there and everything since they needed supplies for there ventures in North America. They were even promised half of Oahu island by one of the Hawaiian kings in return for weapons and ships. Things went really well but then soured for the Russians.
Read on it: http://www.colonialvoyage.com/russhawaii.html.
Do know that after the Russian had to leave Hawaii that one of the Russians in charge of the Russian American Company wanted the Russian government to send a force. But he was turned down.The Russian Emperor recognized the King of Hawaii has the legal ruler of Hawaii so nothing came of it.
Midway island is not part of the State of Hawaii even though it belongs to that island chain.
American Samoa was not officially part of the US until June1900.
Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Samoan_Civil_War
War was settled by the 1899 Treaty of Berlin.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And the US had other islands in the Pacific which they had gotten under the [/FONT]U.S. Guano Island Act of 1856. Any US citizen who found an unclaimed island could claim it if it had Guano. Guano was big business years back.
Navassa Island is in the Caribbean. Most of those islands are very small or coral islands. US once claimed 100 islands that way.
Info. on the Guano Act: http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/guanoisland.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano_Islands_Act
Map of US Pacific Guano Islands: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/maps/um-map.gif
pacifichistorian
Banned
Given U.S. already holds Guam & Wake, for instance, it's likely, IMO, after WW1 (before?), U.S. accepts a German offer to sell the Carolines, & ends up with Truk & Rabaul, both better harbors than Pearl...