British Hawaii

If Hawaii is a British colony, and The British allow The USA a naval bast at Pearl Harbor as part of Lend-Lease or by some treaty, then I can easily see a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor bringing The US directly into the war as in OTL, and it allows Japan to hit two birds with one stone.

Japan was an ally of Nazi Germany. Germany was at war with England. The US is an ally of England and has a major naval base on The British Colony of Hawaii. Japan attack the USA by hitting America's base at Pearl Harbor, and by hitting a base in Hawaii Japan also is attacking England who is the enemy of Japan's ally.

In this scenario Japan might even have more incentive to attack The US Naval Base at Pearl Harbor. Hawaii as a British Colony might force Brittain to fight more of a two theater war both Europe and Pacific. Not sure what this does to the war in Europe.
 
Technically, in our timeline, the only Pacific island that is part of the United States outside of the State of Hawai'i is Palmyra Atoll. That said, the U.S. controls several uninhabited Pacific island territories, but legally they are unincorporated territories making Wake and the others not part of the United States.
 
I think the Brits would have a tough time taking over Hawaii. The planter elite in Hawaii were almost all descended from American missionaries, and those elite held the balance of power in the Kingdom. If the Brits went in they would do it by getting involved in the disputes between the monarchy and the planters. And the planters would quickly get the American government involved. I think that if push came to shove over Hawaii, the Brits would back down. If the Brits try anything official, then the planters overthrow the monarchy and ask for American annexation.

I don't think the Brits would get into a shooting war with the Americans over Hawaii.
 
I think the Brits would have a tough time taking over Hawaii. The planter elite in Hawaii were almost all descended from American missionaries, and those elite held the balance of power in the Kingdom. If the Brits went in they would do it by getting involved in the disputes between the monarchy and the planters. And the planters would quickly get the American government involved. I think that if push came to shove over Hawaii, the Brits would back down. If the Brits try anything official, then the planters overthrow the monarchy and ask for American annexation.

I don't think the Brits would get into a shooting war with the Americans over Hawaii.

So, the British would have to get there first.
 
I think the Brits would have a tough time taking over Hawaii. The planter elite in Hawaii were almost all descended from American missionaries, and those elite held the balance of power in the Kingdom. If the Brits went in they would do it by getting involved in the disputes between the monarchy and the planters. And the planters would quickly get the American government involved. I think that if push came to shove over Hawaii, the Brits would back down. If the Brits try anything official, then the planters overthrow the monarchy and ask for American annexation.

I don't think the Brits would get into a shooting war with the Americans over Hawaii.

It all depends on when. The British did temporarily control the islands for a five months in 1843 when they were seized by Commander George Paulet and then had their sovereignty restored by Admiral Thomas.

It also likely to consider the possible election to the throne of Queen Emma in the election of 1874. She was pro-Britain.
 
Isn't the obvious solution simply to deny America a Pacific coast? Some knd of weak, independent California?
 
Isn't the obvious solution simply to deny America a Pacific coast? Some knd of weak, independent California?

The USA already had a presence in the Pacific before it had a Pacific coastline. It was merchants and whalers, but nevertheless. Britain didn't have a Pacific coastline either.

Now, without California, etc., it seems likely that the US would be much less of a force in the Pacific, and would be unlikely to get Hawaii. But a few other islands like Midway, maybe.
 
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.

I don't know about that: thanks to the ineptitude of Richard Olney, Cleveland's SecState during his second term, the US and Great Britain came very uncomfortably close to war (side effect: it caused Rudyard Kipling to decamp from Vermont, where he had been living comfortably for years, to Great Britain). Mercifully, when McKinley took office in 1897, relations between the US and Great Britain warmed considerably, and did so further after the accession of Theodore Roosevelt, due in no small part to his personal friendship with Cecil Spring-Rice.
 
I don't know about that: thanks to the ineptitude of Richard Olney, Cleveland's SecState during his second term, the US and Great Britain came very uncomfortably close to war (side effect: it caused Rudyard Kipling to decamp from Vermont, where he had been living comfortably for years, to Great Britain). Mercifully, when McKinley took office in 1897, relations between the US and Great Britain warmed considerably, and did so further after the accession of Theodore Roosevelt, due in no small part to his personal friendship with Cecil Spring-Rice.

Well, then I move that a British Hawaii timeline lead directly to war between Britain and the US. That is interesting.
 
Top