Hawaii is never Annaxed by the US as the Hawaiin-American Polotician's coo is unsuccessfull. The Island sanctions them and holds off the coo once it finds out. Some of the poloticians see the sinking ship and join the Monarch's side. Once America finds out, they sanction the poloticians some more and these events cause Hawaii never to be Annaxed. What happens next?
Hawaii never Annaxed
- Thread starter AlternateMan
- Start date
TruthfulPanda
Gone Fishin'
Coo?
Were the "Poloticians" cooing at the Hawaians, enticing them to join the USA?
Inquisitive minds demand to know!
Possibly, or maybe a closer country such as Japan or another Asian/Oceianic country. Maybe britain would use Australia as a base to reach Hawaii but if it survived to 1914, when World War 1 started (only about 18 years) then it would be taken by Japan as in that time it started to become Island happy. Mabye it became Part of Germany in those 18 years, which would give it even more reason to become part of Japan.
Annexation was not inevitable, but even anti-annexationists in the US would not tolerate any other country annexing or dominating Hawaii, and that had been true since the 1840's (and of course US interests in the Islands were far greater a half century later):
"The first formal agreement between the United States and the Sandwich Islands, as they were then called, was signed on December 23, 1826. By December 19, 1842, Secretary Webster could assert that his country was 'more interested in the fate of the islands and of their Government than any other nation.' That same year brought a presidential statement opposing all attempts by European powers to annex Hawaii. Since the group lay outside of the Americas, it was not protected by the Monroe Doctrine; but, in terms reminiscent of 1823, John Tyler told Congress on December 20 that if any nation sought 'to take possession of the Islands, colonize them, and subvert the native Government' it could not but 'create dissatisfaction on the part of the United States.' This Tyler Doctrine, as it came to be known, was reiterated at least seven times in the next decade and was supplemented by two related declarations. One was that the United States might feel justified in using force to prevent Hawaii from falling prey to European aggression; the other that the United States would not enter into a joint agreement with England and France to guarantee the *status quo.*"
Richard W. Leopold, The Growth of American Foreign Policy, p. 131. https://archive.org/stream/growthofamerican00inleop#page/130/mode/2up
IMO the only realistic alternative to annexation was a quasi-protectorate status vis-à-vis the United States. Other countries could not get a dominant position in the Islands without risking a war with the US--and I doubt that any of them would have been willing to risk it over the Islands.
I don't know. British Hawaii falls to Japan WWII, okay, let's say no major butterflies up to that point, (NOT that any specific person alive today would be around) but Japanese attacks on US trade routes or the California coast bring US into WWII for sure, but with emphasis on the Pacific, Not Europe, so...lucky for Brits we got Hawaii or they'd be speaking German at Oxford.
YEah but it is right in Japan's way when it was at peak Island happy.
Soooo....(this is interesting!)....are you saying the Japanese takeover of Hawaii in an ATL would actually please the Hawaiians? I'm still assuming US will kick butt across the Pacific from 1943-1948, and kick the crap out of Japan, HOWEVER, Hawaii was British territory in 1941 ATL, so I'm going to assume that the Brits (if still around? Maybe exiled in Canada?) will demand HORRIBLE revenge against their treacherous (former) subjects.
(I can well understand Haka desire for freedom under any flag, but that way, no I don't think that will work. You'd have to work for independence from the British system, or at least find a way to force better treatment out of them (look at Austrailia) from an earlier POD. If you don't have the right king, make one. European modders do it all the time. Create an alternate list of Hawaiian royalty and get them working on the problem. You can do this! I would LOVE to retire to a FREE Royal Republic of Hawaii where voters get to choose among five royal candidates in order to select who shall be kingborcqueen for the next decade.
Last edited:
NO! Of course a Japanese takeover of Hawaii would not be pleasing, except against the British, a lot of the more violent colonies of England have an unspoken slogan: "Anything is better then Britain", this mainly applies to the Pacific, Asia and America so they may actually prefer Japan to Britain.
The reality is that Hawaii in the 1890s is not able to avoid being some sort of client to somebody else. After the USA, the UK was the only country the Hawaiians, both native and settlers, would have seen as an acceptable "big brother". Once the USA ha the Pi as part of the fallout of the Spanish-American War, there was significant increased interest in Hawaii. Hawaii-Midway-Wake-Guam were stepping stones to the PI for any US forces that were going to reinforce that US holding, especially before the USN went from coal to oil. By 1900 Britain controlling Hawaii (as a protectorate) might barely be acceptable, anybody else no way. In 1895-1900 time frame the Japanese are simply not in a position to try and take over Hawaii, and by WWII seizing it from the UK (forgetting logistics) would be no more popular with the locals than seizing it from the USA would be.
(1) The US objected to the Provisional Government's plans to lease Necker Island to the British for a cable line, and the plan was dropped. https://books.google.com/books?id=q3J1_1E5vgMC&pg=PA263
(2) Moreover, the US House in 1894 passed (by 177-78) a resolution which--while criticizing Stevens' role in the Hawaiian Revolution and finding annexation "inexpedient"--reaffirmed the Tyler Doctrine, which in effect had extended the Monroe Doctrine to Hawaii. At the same time, the Senate *unanimously* passed a resolution declaring that any foreign nation's interference in the Islands would be regarded as an unfriendly act by the United States. https://archive.org/stream/growthofamerican00inleop#page/136/mode/2up/
I mention these facts to show that even anti-annexationists in the US would not tolerate a British protectorate over Hawaii. Of course the British might decide to risk a conflict with the US over the Islands, but I doubt it, and anyway some of the posts above show no awareness that such a conflict would be very likely to happen.
(2) Moreover, the US House in 1894 passed (by 177-78) a resolution which--while criticizing Stevens' role in the Hawaiian Revolution and finding annexation "inexpedient"--reaffirmed the Tyler Doctrine, which in effect had extended the Monroe Doctrine to Hawaii. At the same time, the Senate *unanimously* passed a resolution declaring that any foreign nation's interference in the Islands would be regarded as an unfriendly act by the United States. https://archive.org/stream/growthofamerican00inleop#page/136/mode/2up/
I mention these facts to show that even anti-annexationists in the US would not tolerate a British protectorate over Hawaii. Of course the British might decide to risk a conflict with the US over the Islands, but I doubt it, and anyway some of the posts above show no awareness that such a conflict would be very likely to happen.
You are wrong if you think they can do this without a serious conflict with the United States. See my post immediately above yours. The one thing all American policy makers agreed on, whether or not they favored annexation, was that no other power should be allowed to annex the Islands. I am puzzled how post after post here simply ignores this. Already in the 1840's the Tyler Doctrine had extended the Monroe Doctrine to the Islands--and of course US interests in the Islands only grew in the next half century, especially after the 1875 Reciprocity Treaty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_Treaty_of_1875
Nobody would talk about a European country or Japan seizing a Latin American country in the early twentieth century without at least considering the US reaction! Yet US ties--economic, military, and missionary--with Hawaii were closer than with some Latin American nations...
Marc
Donor
A minor note - Japan is further away from Hawaii than is the United States.
And David T is quite right about real history in regard to American attitudes about Hawaii. Speculating otherwise falls in the pulp syllogism (for alternative history) of If A happened, and B happened, and C happened, and etc. eventually, what we want can happen!
And David T is quite right about real history in regard to American attitudes about Hawaii. Speculating otherwise falls in the pulp syllogism (for alternative history) of If A happened, and B happened, and C happened, and etc. eventually, what we want can happen!
Hawaii remaining truly independent long term is just not happening. Its geographic location is way too strategic, and the island group has enough land mass to have major potential - unlike Wake which is a flyspeck in a useful position as an example. Another problem is that Hawaii is going to be hugely dependent on the outside world for almost everything manufactured, and once the population begins to expand it feeds itself only if it is not exporting things like pineapple which takes up arable land. Being a territory of a larger power deals with both defense and economic issues, and if power A wants to take over Hawaii the only way that is prevented is if power B is involved.
If the USA was not liking the UK running Hawaii, it would like Japan doing so even less. In any case, especially once the USA owns the PI Hawaii becomes tremendously important. If the annexation does not happen on schedule and the US does not acquire the PI then Hawaii is not as important, but the reality it is a marvelous base to threaten the US west coast does not go away.
If the USA was not liking the UK running Hawaii, it would like Japan doing so even less. In any case, especially once the USA owns the PI Hawaii becomes tremendously important. If the annexation does not happen on schedule and the US does not acquire the PI then Hawaii is not as important, but the reality it is a marvelous base to threaten the US west coast does not go away.