AHC: Independent Hawaii

Forty nine stars on the flag. Unless there is some real push to get Puerto Rico on board.

Glossing over annexation, an independent Hawaii in the 20th century would be fairly pro-US. Not withstanding the likelihood that it would be governed by an oligarchy of Hawaii born businessmen claiming American-citizenship. It would probably have all the hallmarks of the Deep South but with sugar plantations instead. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a quasi-Communist rebellion among the oppressed multi-ethnic workers.
 
It would certainly be a target for the Japanese during World War II, since this time attacking Hawaii wouldn't mean an automatic declaration of war from the US.
 
It would certainly be a target for the Japanese during World War II, since this time attacking Hawaii wouldn't mean an automatic declaration of war from the US.

would the japanese bother though?
if hawaii was never part of the us, then there wouldnt be a well stocked and supplied naval base or any strategic value (if they didnt want to go to war with the us...hawaii was chosen cos its a jumping point)
so apart from some scenic views, some plantations and a bit of a sea border extension, what would be the point?
 
would the japanese bother though?
if hawaii was never part of the us, then there wouldnt be a well stocked and supplied naval base or any strategic value (if they didnt want to go to war with the us...hawaii was chosen cos its a jumping point)
so apart from some scenic views, some plantations and a bit of a sea border extension, what would be the point?

I could see Imperial Japan invading Hawaii for a couple of reasons:

1) Because the racist/Japanese supremacist ideology that Imperial Japan had by the 1940s would make them see Japanese immigrant workers in Hawaii being disenfranchised in favor of native Hawaiians and wealthy Anglo-American whites as a perversion of the highest order.

2) Knock out a trading partner with the US, who the IJ government viewed with suspicion, as well as make it easier to restrict any trading to or from the US to other Pacific nations.

3) Remove any chances of the US being able to harbor ships there in case of war. That would mean American ships would have to sail from either the western coast of North America or the Philippines (which Japan would doubtlessly invade as soon as the war started) to fight.
 
But that would mean that:
1. Hawai'i has to be an American ally.
2. Pearl Habour will still be a major naval base of the USN.
2. The Pacific War will still happen.
 
But that would mean that:
1. Hawai'i has to be an American ally.
2. Pearl Habour will still be a major naval base of the USN.
2. The Pacific War will still happen.

1. It probably would be, if it were being dominated by white businessmen.
2. Pearl Harbor probably wouldn't be built. I was going more for the idea that if Hawaii was still independent during WWII, they probably would let the US Navy use their ports or have a situation like Iceland during WWII come about.
3. I'm assuming it or an analog of it will based on the fact that expansionist attitudes in Japan would probably not be butterflied away (or are already gaining steam before the POD if its after the Meiji Restoration) and that American & European nations will want to hang on to their territory in the Pacific rather than let Japan take them over.
 
1. It probably would be, if it were being dominated by white businessmen.
2. Pearl Harbor probably wouldn't be built. I was going more for the idea that if Hawaii was still independent during WWII, they probably would let the US Navy use their ports or have a situation like Iceland during WWII come about.
3. I'm assuming it or an analog of it will based on the fact that expansionist attitudes in Japan would probably not be butterflied away (or are already gaining steam before the POD if its after the Meiji Restoration) and that American & European nations will want to hang on to their territory in the Pacific rather than let Japan take them over.

1. the busnissmen who wanted closer realtions with the us also wanted to be a state...thats how ti became a state...if hawaii here is independent its likly that the otherthrow of the monarchy never happened, and would probaly be mroe closly tied with the uk
2. as stated above, without the otherthrow its unlikly the hawaiians wouldve allowed the us to place a military base on the islands (mabye the biritsh or french, who, before the otherthrow, had greater ties to the islands and also recognised them better than the us did) in case of being attacked by a foreign power at war with any bases owners
3. hawaii would probaly take a neutral stance in any war or depending on who japan attacks, would eb backed by the uk or us so it doesnt benefit the japanese to attack it in the long run
 

Winnabago

Banned
An easy way to do this is to have the American colonies repeatedly fail, or to have the French win the Seven Years War, or fight the Brits to a standoff.

Then, there would be no powerful, industrialized nation on the east side of the Pacific willing to go that far, and Hawaii would (probably) stay independent to the present day.

What about Japan? I imagine without the Americans forcibly opening of Japan, there wouldn’t be a Japanese Empire like the one in WW2.

What about England? No idea.
 
An easy way to do this is to have the American colonies repeatedly fail, or to have the French win the Seven Years War, or fight the Brits to a standoff.

.

you dotn even need that....both france and brition recognised haiwaiian sovereignty and independence in 1840 something (years before the americans did)
hawaii only lost its independence due to the monarchy being overthrown and buiness interests from the states....if you remove the rebellion and have a more stable monarchy (mabye where bishop remains king or produces a heir instead of leaving it up to a elective vote) then its easily doable without major changes
 

Winnabago

Banned
Only problem being that being recognized by European powers does not prevent invasion. If that was true, we would have a lot more independent Native American tribes.

Also, do you really think that the Hawaiians could have beaten the Americans?
 
Also, do you really think that the Hawaiians could have beaten the Americans?

Several likely points in time:

1. The Revolution of 1887 is put down.
2. The Counterrevolution of 1888 against the Bayonet Constitution of the previous year succeeds.
3. The 1893 Overthrow is stopped in its formative hours by Sheriff Wilson arresting most of the ring leaders.
4. The Rebellion of 1895 against the Provisional Government succeeds.
 

WhiteHawk

Banned
Well, it could certainly existed as a republic. I believe Cleveland strongly opposed annexation, and it was only after McKinley got in that Hawaii was annexed.

I think that the best chance for monarchy is the nation passing into Britains sphere of influence. I dont think that Britain really dispossessed the native rulers.
 
A 'republic' equals white oligarchy rule, which means eventual annexation. Have Grover Cleveland recognise the monarchy, scold the the oligarchs and sign a 50 year treaty guaranteeing independence, say in exchange for a base at Pearl Harbour.

The Imperialists get what they want, a mid-Pacific port, and the gurantee will severly hinder any attempt at annexation, namely due to British and Japanese interests in the nominally independent Hawaiian economy. They will certainly have far less leverage than the Americans but with the main strategic goal of Pearl Harbour already taken, the Imperialist cause is incredibly thin.

Also if the *Spanish-American War still kicks off, the US will gain island colonies even further into the Pacific, making the calls for Hawaiian annexation even weaker. A few decades of the status quo and the oligarch movement will be seen as a historical curiousity and terribly un-American.
 
A 'republic' equals white oligarchy rule, which means eventual annexation. Have Grover Cleveland recognise the monarchy, scold the the oligarchs and sign a 50 year treaty guaranteeing independence, say in exchange for a base at Pearl Harbour.

The Imperialists get what they want, a mid-Pacific port, and the gurantee will severly hinder any attempt at annexation, namely due to British and Japanese interests in the nominally independent Hawaiian economy. They will certainly have far less leverage than the Americans but with the main strategic goal of Pearl Harbour already taken, the Imperialist cause is incredibly thin.

Also if the *Spanish-American War still kicks off, the US will gain island colonies even further into the Pacific, making the calls for Hawaiian annexation even weaker. A few decades of the status quo and the oligarch movement will be seen as a historical curiousity and terribly un-American.

Seconded for truth!
 
It wouldn't be at all difficult to have an independent Hawai'i as a British Protectorate, I'm sure. Of course, depending on HOW 'protected' it was, you might not consider it 'independent'.
 
It wouldn't be at all difficult to have an independent Hawai'i as a British Protectorate, I'm sure. Of course, depending on HOW 'protected' it was, you might not consider it 'independent'.

They'd just have to get in early, otherwise they'll be a diplomatic punch up with the Americans. Though really, a US basing rights seems the easiest and most clear cut way to maintain a free Hawai'i.
 
Top