WI Kingdom of Hawaii was still around today?

The situation concerning Hawaii involved numerous factors, one including President Cleveland, the UK, and the Empire of Japan pushing to end the anti-monarchy faction, to mock invasions involving US forces against the same.

So WI the envisioned invasion, on the side of the Hawaiian monarchy occured in 1894 and restored the Kingdom of Hawaii? How would the history play out with another independent power in the Pacific?

I don't think it would be hugely different. Hawaii would likely remain an Americanized US ally, much like the Phillipines. Probably there would still be US military bases there, but fewer White Americans taking up residency.

Fenwick said:

How would the history play out with another independent power in the Pacific?

Click to expand...

Such a kingdom would have been "independent" in the same manner the Philippines, Fiji, or Samoa were "independent" and would have been a "power" in the same manner those aforementioned nations were "powers".

As tallwingedgoat correctly pointed out, there would be no substantial change to history. Hawaii is in too important a position for the real powers of the world to ignore. Absent US annexation in the 1890s, she would have been closely controlled US protectorate instead and one whose "independence" would have come later than the Philippine's thanks to her strategic position.

There’s always the possibility that the Imperial powers in the Pacific would find it in everyone’s interests that none actually possessed the islands, a la Thailand. Britain and France preferred that neither possessed it rather than that the other did.

If something similar to the Samoan Crisis occurred in Hawaii perhaps a treaty guaranteeing the independence and neutrality of the islands based of Belgium’s could have occurred.

Cook said:

There’s always the possibility that the Imperial powers in the Pacific would find it in everyone’s interests that none actually possessed the islands, a la Thailand. Britain and France preferred that neither possessed it rather than that the other did.

Click to expand...

When looking at Thailand as an example, we should remember to note Thailand's geographic position. Britain and France could decide that Thailand remain neutral - and then make that decision stick - because Britain and France were the only colonial powers present in the region.

When another colonial power entered the picture, Japan in 1940, Thailand's neutral days ended quickly. Thailand was forced into an alliance of sorts with Japan, provided Japan with material support and logistical bases, and followed Japan's instruction in international diplomacy. Thailand even fought and lost to Vichy French naval forces in Indochina and Bangkok was bombed a few times by the Allies.

In the case of Hawaii, those islands first have Britain, France, and the US with which to contend, with Germany entering the picture after roughly 1880 and Japan after 1900. There are too many players active in the region and the islands are too great of a strategic prize for any of them to ignore or eschew.

The strategic issues bring us to the next point you raise.

If something similar to the Samoan Crisis...

Click to expand...

Samoa was eventually divided into spheres of interest much like mainland China and thus had little actual independence. Samoa was also in the back of beyond with other islands groups relatively nearby. That meant one power could grab all of Samoa while the others could easily remain in the region by seizing nearby islands.

Hawaii sits alone in her part of the Pacific. Aside from a stormy "Great Circle" route along the treacherous Aleutians, the islands are essentially the sole stopping point between Asia and North America. Even before ships needed fuel, the islands were visited to take on food and water.

Very importantly, Hawaii in US hands protects the US west coast and Hawaii in other hands threatens the US west coast.

Hawaii's position is simply too important for the US to ignore and for any power with interests in the Pacific to ignore. While Hawaii doesn't automatically give it's possessor control of the Pacific, possessing the islands does give a nation a leg up towards that goal.

How strange, what an idea this is
I live in Hawaii, born here.

King Kamehameha ruled the islands, and then it was all good, his monarchy. Captain Cook, we were friendly at first to this guy, then it turned sour if I remember right. His guns made a huge impact on the winnings of the islands.
And so it was recognized as the Kingdom of Hawaii. You must understand, there is no metal to mine here. It was annexed by trickery, huge scandal, and the lie was repeated so many times that everyone stopped noticing.

I am not of hawaiian blood though, and only 16.

We had cane sugar, that was why the south us didn't want hawaii annexed, competition with their cane sugar, if i remember my books right.

and the complaints are generally ignored even now, sorta.
You should do something on Soviet Russia not being attacked by Germany, and unleashing a huge attack on Europe as a consequence.
Or the Japanese balloon bombs actually hiting the mainland and acheiving their objective.

Let me elaborate. We were recognized by itnernational law as a kingdom.

Hawaii might be independent, but what about Pearl Harbor? How long do you think they could keep the British, Americans or any other world power out of such a fine anchorage in the middle of the ocean? They'd probably get a better deal from the British.

Probably something similar to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Hawaii as a territory of the USA.

A POD that late is too late to salvage the Kindgom enough to make it anything other than a larger Tonga with the racial strife of Fiji. In my opinion, by the end, the monarchy in Hawaii had to go.

Laqueesha said:

Probably something similar to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Hawaii as a territory of the USA.

Click to expand...

Not as a monarchy though.

Wendell said:

A POD that late is too late to salvage the Kindgom enough to make it anything other than a larger Tonga with the racial strife of Fiji. In my opinion, by the end, the monarchy in Hawaii had to go.

Click to expand...

The POD is during the Black Week period when the provisional republic of Hawaii was facing the serious issue of President Cleveland not wanting to annex the islands.

The democratic controlled congress was against what Cleveland did, and to counter the report he made, created another which framed the actions of Hawaii as a purely internal issue and thus not the concern of the USA.

However in Dec 1893 to Jan 1894 two US war ships were in postion to nvade, and Japan offered one warship, while the UK offered one as well. This was to occur alongside about 500 Hawaiians retaking the capital. A major stepping stone however was that the USA, UK, and Japanese wanted amnesty for the Provisional Republic government, while the Queen of Hawaii openly said when she retook power she was going to have them all killed.

So the ability to have Hawaii remain not only independent, but have nations fight for said independence is there. While we view Hawaii as being taken over by external powers it was internal matters that ended the monarchy. Dole did not want a republic it wanted the almost none existant tarrifs being a US state gave his company.

Fenwick said:

The POD is during the Black Week period when the provisional republic of Hawaii was facing the serious issue of President Cleveland not wanting to annex the islands.

The democratic controlled congress was against what Cleveland did, and to counter the report he made, created another which framed the actions of Hawaii as a purely internal issue and thus not the concern of the USA.

However in Dec 1893 to Jan 1894 two US war ships were in postion to nvade, and Japan offered one warship, while the UK offered one as well. This was to occur alongside about 500 Hawaiians retaking the capital. A major stepping stone however was that the USA, UK, and Japanese wanted amnesty for the Provisional Republic government, while the Queen of Hawaii openly said when she retook power she was going to have them all killed.

So the ability to have Hawaii remain not only independent, but have nations fight for said independence is there. While we view Hawaii as being taken over by external powers it was internal matters that ended the monarchy. Dole did not want a republic it wanted the almost none existant tarrifs being a US state gave his company.

Click to expand...

I stand by my opinion on the matter. Remember that the monarchy was trying to reassert authority previously ceded to parliament prior to being toppled. If the U.S. (stupidly IMO) goes ahead with an invasion to bring about restoration, then it will condemn the islands to decades of bad governance at best.

Pearl Harbor was a strike at the US navy, precisely that. And the Kingdom of Hawaii was fine before the US annexed. Now, World War is not so much a problem, but the US kept the islands for control of the Pacific.
Scandal.

BTW, I think my intermediate and high school books said that the monarchs of Hawaii took too many advisors from the US. Greedy advisors. They were a force.

Yes, I remember reading about those navy ships too. Its like saying do this or else, it seems.
Japan and China gonan buy up the islands piece by piece today, instead.

zdragon said:

Pearl Harbor was a strike at the US navy, precisely that. And the Kingdom of Hawaii was fine before the US annexed. Now, World War is not so much a problem, but the US kept the islands for control of the Pacific.
Scandal.

BTW, I think my intermediate and high school books said that the monarchs of Hawaii took too many advisors from the US. Greedy advisors. They were a force.

Yes, I remember reading about those navy ships too. Its like saying do this or else, it seems.
Japan and China gonan buy up the islands piece by piece today, instead.

Click to expand...

THere was nothing illegal nor scanalous about American acquisition oh Hawaii. It was not all warm and fuzzy, but was not illegal.

Wendell said:

Kindgom enough to make it anything other than a larger Tonga with the racial strife of Fiji. In my opinion, by the end, the monarchy in Hawaii had to go.

Click to expand...

This didn’t even exist until the first coup in the ‘80s.

There are a number of other Polynesian Kingdoms that are entirely stable and a number of republics that are in chaos, the monarchy is not the key issue.

zdragon said:

How strange, what an idea this is
I live in Hawaii, born here. I am not of hawaiian blood though, and only 16.

Click to expand...

Which make your posts all the more puzzling. Surely English is your native language? You mention you're in school and have access to text books also, so your instruction must have been in English. Yet you're seemingly unable to compose a coherent sentence.

Are you unable to write coherently? Or is it that you cannot be bothered to write coherently?

We've members for which English is a second, third, or even fourth language and they can write far better than either you do or can be bothered to do.

Hawaii...

I rather like the idea of Hawaii still being a British possession today. When I went there in 2006, we were on a coach tour round Oahu and the driver asked where we were all from.

When he found out I was British, he tried the old "gor blimey" accent (a pretty good Dick Van Dyke impression to be honest). I replied that Hawaii was British and we wanted it back but the US could have the Isle of Wight in exchange.

Then I thought that would make a fantastic ASB scenario....

Hawai'i should have been independent...

Frankly, it needed a Treaty base at Pearl for the Royal Navy, paying a suitable rent. The Queen of Hawai'i should have been told that help was conditional on a constitutional monarchy. You can then have Britain making the USA a sub-lessee as part of the Lend-Lease Agreements. So the Japanese attack a British-American facility.

Wendell said:

I stand by my opinion on the matter. Remember that the monarchy was trying to reassert authority previously ceded to parliament prior to being toppled. If the U.S. (stupidly IMO) goes ahead with an invasion to bring about restoration, then it will condemn the islands to decades of bad governance at best.

Click to expand...

The worst government the Hawaiian islands had was that of the Provisional Government and the Republic of Hawaii. The governance of the Monarchy was fine, tho thwarted in its ability to adequately govern by the interference of those of Missionary descent primarily.