WI Britain annexes Hawaii?
- Thread starter EnglishCanuck
- Start date
Saphroneth
Banned
...define protectorate.
It's a nebulous term, that's kind of the point.
Heck, Taiwan is basically a US protectorate, since the reason Taiwan still exists is that the USN would sink any PLAN landing, and "British" Kyushu would be the same thing. Painted a nice pink on the map, full of moderately resentful Japanese nobles weighing off honour against getting really very rich - and, whichever they choose, remaining tooled up to the nines.
If you think he's wrong, maybe you should explain why. However, it's a fairly innocuous opinion: as I've said previously, British involvement at this stage tends to be with the rationale of preserving order. The annexation of New Zealand (1840) is to bring order to the lawless European settlements there and, at least in part, to ensure a fair deal for the Maori; the annexation of Scinde (1843) is due to raids on British convoys; the annexation of the Punjab (1849) follows the complete collapse of civilian government, although even then it takes two wars to persuade the British to take the job on; the occupation of Natal follows Boer attacks on the Xhosa. In fact, the doctrine of lapse (1848 onwards), codifying as it does the idea that it's the British responsibility to preserve stability in areas within their sphere of influence, is perhaps a response to the instability in the metropole in the 1840s.
GdwnsnHo
Banned
Good to see you're as polite and eloquent as ever, with thoughts clearly explained so we can all understand your perspective.
I wasn't fully aware of this, does this suggest that (with available resources) if the British thought of Japan as within their sphere of influence they would get involved during an ATL Bakumatsu period?
In general, the British try to either create or maintain a safe environment for trade/commerce/industry to take place. British involvement in Hawaii might lead to more trade in the Pacific, which might lead to a greater presence in Japan if/when they do open to trade. If there are a significant number of British traders killed in xenophobic violence as a reaction to this opening, Britain might feel compelled to get involved both for practical reasons and for reasons of honour. The latter had at least partially motivated the earlier war against China- see Glenn Melancon, 'Honour in Opium? The British Declaration of War on China, 1839-40,' International History Review vol. 21 no. 4 (December 1999).
However, the British inclination wouldn't be to just annex vast swathes of territory- it costs too much, and tends to contribute to instability in the short term. The tendency was to try and shore up an amenable native ruler, as they do in the Punjab between the First and Second Sikh Wars, or indeed as they do with the Qing when the issues of trade from the Arrow Wars are settled. You'd need a number of significant changes to end up with annexation rather than a protectorate: the emperor would have to be completely unwilling to compromise on British access to local markets, and the British would need considerably more troops to deploy. An interesting way of getting to the latter would be Maori colonial auxiliary regiments along Indian lines, further blurring the lines of racial differentiation between pakeha and Maori.
GdwnsnHo
Banned
I've been joking around with this in another thread, but what if the British got themselves as a third player in the Bakumatsu? Smaller expeditionary force establishes dominance over the Shimazu/Satsuma Domain in response to the Namamugi Incident, and then the ambitious commander (Napier was suggested), is ordered/has his hand forced/goes beyond his remit and uses local forces and his expeditionary force to set up a British Shogunate. Essentially have the Daimyo of Satsuma fighting for the British, with some small British support, claiming the Shogunate and installing the British Monarch as Emperor rather than the current one. (Details still to be ironed out)
In the circumstance that the commander does it of his own volition, he knows full well that only success will excuse his insubordination, and prevent execution.
Moving beyond Japan - what else have we got, Pacific Canada seems to have options to be impacted, New Zealand too.
I may have missed it, but would the British be interest ITTL in having control over the Panama Canal analogue as well? They'd need to develop the technology before it was a consideration, but later after Hawaii is controlled, that could be of interest.
What if the Hawaiian Islands asked to become a British protectorate? Any ideas there?
Kamehameha IV was fairly pro-British. Had he lived longer he was already attempting to cultivate strong ties with Britain during his brief reign, perhaps he might have felt it would be a good idea?
Kamehameha IV was fairly pro-British. Had he lived longer he was already attempting to cultivate strong ties with Britain during his brief reign, perhaps he might have felt it would be a good idea?
So we're thinking something like Malaya (Or the Princely States).
Not actual direct rule?
With a colonial administered enclave at say Pearl (Like Singapore).
Something like that yes. They really don't need to overthrow the monarchy since it already provides them with everything a colonial government would. They could just arm the local forces and establish an enclave/base/coaling station at Pearl.
Saphroneth
Banned
Yeah, probably. Coloured pink on the map, the Resident having a huge amount of soft power, and "part of the British Empire" but through local rulers rather than directly.
When there's already a power structure amenable to you, why not? It worked for Egypt!
usertron2020
Donor
By that reasoning, Western Europe has been a "protectorate" of the USA since 1945 until at least 1991.
Talk about American Exceptionalism!Western attempts to subvert Japan since their first contacts in the 16th century could never get past Japanese insularity. The Japanese had to be most suspicious of the British since they were the greatest threat. Japan was open (after considerable hand-wringing) to opening economic doors, not political ones. Japan enjoyed a degree of unity by the 19th century that the likes of India and the peoples of Africa and China could only dream of. The idea of handing over large tracts of sacred Japanese soil to gaijin or their Japanese traitor puppets was unthinkable. But replacing the God-Emperor of Japan by declaring Victoria Japan's Empress
would be manyfold exponentially more impossible than that.Saphroneth
Banned
Have you ever heard of the Ezo Republic?Western attempts to subvert Japan since their first contacts in the 16th century could never get past Japanese insularity. The Japanese had to be most suspicious of the British since they were the greatest threat. Japan was open (after considerable hand-wringing) to opening economic doors, not political ones. Japan enjoyed a degree of unity by the 19th century that the likes of India and the peoples of Africa and China could only dream of. The idea of handing over large tracts of sacred Japanese soil to gaijin or their Japanese traitor puppets was unthinkable. But replacing the God-Emperor of Japan by declaring Victoria Japan's Empress
That but propped up by Brit ships.
GdwnsnHo
Banned
By that reasoning, Western Europe has been a "protectorate" of the USA since 1945 until at least 1991.
I wouldn't entirely disagree, there are a few caviates however. The western European bases are a contribution to an alliance network, and from what I've been able to ascertain, are funded by the US government - in contrast, the US bases in the Okonawa/Ryukuan Archiapeligo are partially funded by the Japanese government (40% at least reckoning).
You wouldn't be the first to think that western Europe is a protectorate, it is a genuine political movement both in the UK and US (and probably elsewhere) to remove them. (see Bill Maher for example).
Western attempts to subvert Japan since their first contacts in the 16th century could never get past Japanese insularity. The Japanese had to be most suspicious of the British since they were the greatest threat. Japan was open (after considerable hand-wringing) to opening economic doors, not political ones. Japan enjoyed a degree of unity by the 19th century that the likes of India and the peoples of Africa and China could only dream of. The idea of handing over large tracts of sacred Japanese soil to gaijin or their Japanese traitor puppets was unthinkable. But replacing the God-Emperor of Japan by declaring Victoria Japan's Empress
1) If they were so insular, they may not have been aware that Britain was the greatest threat, the Dutch and Portugese may have been there interacting longer, and could be seen as a more threatening presence - just a possibility, we haven't seen anything about Japanese attitudes regarding specifically Britain in this thread beyond typical stereotypes.
2) We aren't talking about "Handing over large tracts", that makes it sound like they were at all willing. A military conquest/occupation of Satsuma isn't at all "willing". However, having Japanese Daiymo/Shogunate sponsored by the British is entirely different. Each Daiymo could be considered a protectorate, and as such still control their territory in Japan, and the Shogunate would still control Japan.
3) Yes, displacing the Emperor would be unusual, and there is every chance that a British-sponsored Shogunate could well betray Britain, and chase them out, but they still wouldn't want an Emperor who would inspire pro-Imperial sentiments, having a unchallengeable, but not directly ruling, Emperor ensures a Shogunate system. As was mentioned, this could be simply a British Ezo Republic (but in Kyushu), or the same writ large. Not that we'll have them drinking Pale Ale and Gin by the end of the week!
Western attempts to subvert Japan since their first contacts in the 16th century could never get past Japanese insularity. The Japanese had to be most suspicious of the British since they were the greatest threat. Japan was open (after considerable hand-wringing) to opening economic doors, not political ones. Japan enjoyed a degree of unity by the 19th century that the likes of India and the peoples of Africa and China could only dream of. The idea of handing over large tracts of sacred Japanese soil to gaijin or their Japanese traitor puppets was unthinkable. But replacing the God-Emperor of Japan by declaring Victoria Japan's Empress
Just to weigh in on this whole idea, usertron has a good point here. The idea of the Japanese handing over a single domain to foreign dominance is ludicrous. The Shogunate would be compelled to act if Japanese territory was invaded by a foreign power, and in a supreme irony they would be moving in defence of one of the more rebellious southern daimyos (whose policy since 1600 had been do the opposite of what the Shogun wanted, hence why they attacked foreigners in the first place). That would most likely have the unintended consequence of cementing the Shogun's power for at least a little longer.
However, it's also true that the Japanese in the 1860s didn't have a particularly good grasp of the outside world. For instance when they began to open up they sent out men who spoke Dutch since they assumed the Dutch were the dominant European power since they were the only ones they interacted with on a regular basis. They quickly learned the error of their ways there.
The British can't really make someone a daimyo either, that power lies with the Shogun or Imperial court. Another important point is that the British could not move in and declare someone shogun, only the Emperor could do that (even if until 1868 that process was basically a rubber stamp). The shogun was not a king, so any attempt to declare someone shogun would be laughably misguided. Nor could they hope to control the Emperor, the politicking of the imperial court is so byzantine and impossible to predict it makes Byzantine politics look tame. So other than by force of arms the British don't have a way to co-opt the local power structure, and that would require the expenditure of far more resources than the British would be willing to spend.
The final point on this issue is that an occupation of Kyushu would be hideously expensive from a military perspective. While its conceivable the British could conquer it if they so chose, why would they want to when they can thrash the Satsuma, then deal with the Shogun behind the backs of the Satsuma rulers or offer aid to the Shogun in crushing the Satsuma once and for all?
GdwnsnHo
Banned
You are entirely right, I'm just going to make one last comment so we can look at OTHER aspects of a Post-Hawaii world - the idea is borderline, and the only reason I think anything like this could happen, is if the only real anglo-japanese incident went VERY differently - after all, the Brits bombarded a daimyo because they killed an ambassador. Britain literally invaded Ethiopia because of a slight of honour, and a kidnapped missionary. I don't think it is absurd to think that someone would either occupy, or at least invade part of Satsuma domain in response, rather than simply bombard it - would this involve the Shogun, probably, and things get messy quick.
---- MOVING ON ----
What would be the likelyhood of the British using Hawaii as a centrepoint to establish a large number of Polynesian protectorates? Use Hawaii as the main Protectorate, and use a ship to impress the locals.
Once radio and other long-distance communication technology advances, it'd be cool to see British radio towers across the Polynesian archipelago.
As for a reason - perhaps not the fishing, but which islands would be useful as ports in a storm, places to centre whaling, or fishing about.
(I'm not that familiar with the economics of the pacific islands, but I think I'm interesting in giving it a read).
Assuming they did, could the British be a middle man in forming a Pacific Federation that unites the various islands?
He wouldn't be executed, just recalled. But in the event that he exceeds his authority by launching the kind of private war you propose, the British are unlikely to leave him in post whether he succeeds or not. No Foreign Secretary wants to hand control of Britain's international relations over to subordinates, and certainly nothing as important as setting up a client state: they have enough trouble with Elliot's actions.
I'm not convinced it's dramatically more byzantine than, for instance, the courts at Lahore or Beijing. The structure you probably end up with is a British resident at court, focused on a relatively limited set of goals- free access to markets, protection of British merchants, the right to practice religion. Everything else would be business as usual for the Japanese, except that British naval power would be backing the status quo.
What might do it is an American filibustering expedition, which leads Kamehameha to conclude that the best method of retaining at least some power is to make a deal with the British.