Kingdom of Hawaii Survives. How.

there would have been next to no reason why pearl harbour would happen if it wasn't part of US ... only if US had a military base there, otherwise there would be absulutely no reason for the Japanese to attack there.

All that through demands that butterflies from the initial PoD doesn't kill off WW2

...

The most obvious/easiest in my mind would be France not selling Louisiana to USA, This would neatly block any American ambitions in the pacific as they wouldn't get land there any time soon.

If Napoleon still drops as planed with the following Concert of Vienna, I don't see any chance of USA (a non-entry in the Napoleanic wars, if anything closer to being an ally of France than Great Britain) getting Louisana. Either its forced to become a sovereign country, or it would become a British colony, either case leading to the same serious roadblock to American west-ward expansion
 
There could also be a greater British/Japanese influence in Hawaii. Or if China westernizes, that's also an option.
 
It's tough, given Hawaii's strategic position in the Pacific for whaling, coaling stations, and naval bases, but if the Kingdom exercised more control over the influx of American settlers and agribusinesses in the 1850-1890 period its possible that some sort of independent Hawaii might survive.

Hawaii would eventually be aligned with, but not politically absorbed into the Anglosphere. I suspect American influence would still be strong in an Independent Kingdom of Hawaii, but its questionable that Pearl Harbor would be developed as a major US Naval base, in fact it may not be developed at all for any purpose given the work that was required to deepen the channels. Only the USA and Britain were in a geopolitical position and had the naval presence to influence the Kingdom and play favors with its monarchs. If clever, Hawaii might play this rivalry to help ensure that neither the US nor Britain assumed outright control.

I doubt that Japan, Russia, France, China or any other potential colonizer would be in a position to actually claim the Islands during the critical 1840-1880 period when the Kingdom was established.
 

jahenders

Banned
British influence is most likely. They had ports around the Pacific including Washington, Australia, etc. Hawaii was a convenient intermediate point.

Other than the British just retaining focus and influence in Hawaii, any slowdown in US expansion could have made it likely that someone else would have either seized it or protected it by their presence. The hard part is coming up with some trade route that makes sense to tie Hawaii to UK possessions.

The Dutch could be another possibility, as with the East Indies.

Any number of things could have caused US expansion delay -- longer revolution, slower acceptance of constitution, no Louisiana purchase (or a smaller one), more Spanish opposition, more British opposition (in the NW), etc.

In any case, if Hawaii remains an "independent" kingdom, it's almost certainly under someone's influence (UK, Dutch, etc). Unless someone builds it up as a MAJOR base, Hawaii plays little role early in WW2 as there's nothing to attract the Japanese that far out. Additionally, without Hawaii as a major base, the US is far less able to project power in the Pacific and so probably takes a softer line with the Japanese, perhaps delaying/avoiding war.

However, during the war, the US would almost certainly build a base there if for no other reason than to ensure the Japanese don't.

There could also be a greater British/Japanese influence in Hawaii. Or if China westernizes, that's also an option.
 
You could either prevent Queen Lili'uokalani's overthrow in 1893, or let the attempted royalist counter-revolution in 1895 succeed. (The latter may work out better in the long-term, as preventing the 1893 overthrow may just delay the inevitable for a few years.)
 
The British make Hawaii a colony while maintaining the royal family, partially ruling through them. Then, during decolonization it gains its independence as constitutional monarchy.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Hawaiian independence as a kingdom is difficult;

Is what it says on the tin.

Without major 180s in the space-time continum (i.e. no US westward expansion, which requires a POD of Marianas Trench proportions) then Hawaiian independence as a kingdom is difficult, largely because of the strategic position. Likewise, a random European power planting the flag is unlikely because of distance. The Russians and French tried, but it didn't take; even the British tried (sort of) but gave it up as not worth the effort, as well.

The Hawaiians managed to play the British and Americans off each other for a few decades (as per the flag), but the economic life of the island was largely in the hands of American emigrants by the 1850s or so, and the islands are much closer to the US West Coast ports than to those of any other power (and the British had much more lucrative places to spend their resources in the Pacific in the Nineteenth Century than the eastern Pacific.) The islands were pretty much acknowledged as part of the US sphere of influence by the 1880s, certainly after the Samoa Crisis.

And if Hawaii is still independent as a monarchy in the 1890s, an internal republican revolution is certainly a possibility, with or without formal US aid.

The other point is that by the end of the century, the obvious importance of Hawaii as a bastion protecting the US West Coast is clear; the "triangle" of Alaska-Hawaii-Panama was appreciated as far back as Schofield's mission in the 1860s.

If Hawaii is independent in the Twentieth Century and has no guarantee of protection by the US (which seems extremely unlikely for obvious reasons), then Hawaii is an obvious target of the Japanese - everything else being equal.

Which will not be a pleasant experience for the Hawaiians, no matter their ancestry.

Best
 
Last edited:
And if Hawaii is still independent as a monarchy in the 1890s, an internal republican revolution is certainly a possibility, with or without formal US aid.

Certainly in the 1890s, the vast majority of the native population were keen on the monarchy - it was really the American incoming elite who were doing the heavy lifting as regards republicanism. for instance, masses of people came out to bury Albert Kunuiakea (bastard son of Kamehameha III) in royal pomp in 1903.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
True - I merely offer it as a possibility.

Certainly in the 1890s, the vast majority of the native population were keen on the monarchy - it was really the American incoming elite who were doing the heavy lifting as regards republicanism. for instance, masses of people came out to bury Albert Kunuiakea (bastard son of Kamehameha III) in royal pomp in 1903.

True - I merely offer it as a possibility.

Even filibusters would not be beyond the realm of possibility; it's not like the Kingdom's military resources were especially strong.

Best,
 
there would have been next to no reason why pearl harbour would happen if it wasn't part of US ... only if US had a military base there, otherwise there would be absulutely no reason for the Japanese to attack there.

"The U.S. government first obtained exclusive use of the inlet and the right to maintain a repair and coaling station for ships here in 1887." https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pearl_Harbor No reason it couldn't have eventually made a it a naval base without formally annexing Hawaii.

The most obvious POD for keeping the Hawaiian Kingdom is for Liliuokalani to acquiesce in the so-called Bayonet Constitution and for the islands to become an American quasi-protectorate while still retaining formal independence as a constitutional monarchy.
 
The Hawaiians managed to play the British and Americans off each other for a few decades (as per the flag), but the economic life of the island was largely in the hands of American emigrants by the 1850s or so, and the islands are much closer to the US West Coast ports than to those of any other power (and the British had much more lucrative places to spend their resources in the Pacific in the Nineteenth Century than the eastern Pacific.) The islands were pretty much acknowledged as part of the US sphere of influence by the 1880s, certainly after the Samoa Crisis.
Right, they were not completely unaware of their situation. What if Hawaii sees the writing on the wall and sees the best way to make its culture survive is by getting some kind of Trucial State agreement with Britain?

Being British-controlled with some benign neglect is the best chance I think they have to end up as an independent nation in the end.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
Right, they were not completely unaware of their situation. What if Hawaii sees the writing on the wall and sees the best way to make its culture survive is by getting some kind of Trucial State agreement with Britain?

Being British-controlled with some benign neglect is the best chance I think they have to end up as an independent nation in the end.

A similar deal could work with the US provided military bases and coaling stations are provided. It could easily survive as a puppet kingdom.

Hawaii offered very little economic value to the US, it was almost entirely strategic. You keep that strategic value in check, say with a concession of Pearl Harbor, much like how the Qing gave concessions to the British, and it can stay independent for as long as the US wants it to, which could be forever as long as the base is allowed.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The British and French had accepted the Tyler Doctrine in

Right, they were not completely unaware of their situation. What if Hawaii sees the writing on the wall and sees the best way to make its culture survive is by getting some kind of Trucial State agreement with Britain?

Being British-controlled with some benign neglect is the best chance I think they have to end up as an independent nation in the end.

The British and French both accepted the Tyler Doctrine in 1843, including British disavowal of Paulet's actions that same year, even without an official U.S. protest.

As far as British suzerainty being "better" for the Hawaians, it wasn't like the British were particularly gentle with the Maori, Native Australians, or First Nations in British Columbia in this era. And black birding continued well past the legal abolition of slavery in the Empire in the 1840s.

And even where there were accommodations (Fiji, for example) the British happily imported indentured Indian field workers; so it's not like the British weren't trying to make a profit in their Pacific colonies any more or less than any of the other powers were...

Imperialism existed for economic (sometimes strategic) gain... There was no "good" way to get imperialized; only those societies that resisted survived.

Best,
 
Top