Rosa Luxemburg
Banned
He's right thoughIf you don't know what the Hawaiian flag looks like, then scroll up to my first post on this thread (I know that you know what it looks like, Colonel Zoidberg).
He's right thoughIf you don't know what the Hawaiian flag looks like, then scroll up to my first post on this thread (I know that you know what it looks like, Colonel Zoidberg).
It is an amalgamation of the US and British flags only. The French flag does not, and did not, show in any iteration. Per Hawai'i State Library and Encyclopedia Britannica.Britain or France. The Hawaiian flag is an amalgamation of those two flags and the American one. Probably Britain.
It is an amalgamation of the US and British flags only. The French flag does not, and did not, show in any iteration. Per Hawai'i State Library and Encyclopedia Britannica.
Don't trust tour guides.So it would be Britain, though I have been told the French flag factored in. Source: one of the tour guides on my honeymoon who may have gotten his information a little mixed up.
Still, I see Britain as a better option than France to have Hawaii. And if they got busier sooner, Japan. Seriously, even today there’s a ton of Japanese influence in Hawaii, to the point where it’s almost an unofficial language.
I'd be curious what kind of POD gets one to Mexico having the ability to take Hawai'i. I personally find it hard enough to figure out a POD to get them to Clipperton Island successfully.Mexican Hawaii would be interesting to see and usually one of my first moves whenevr I revist Victoria II
Britain had a chance, and the British government said "give them back independence". I find it unlikely Britain will ever do anything beyond what they did with the Trucial States, or Kuwait and even that's pushing it. I know a lot of people around here "Britain can take anything" and yes, they probably could (except apparently Afghanistan), and yet- there is always the intelligence of the British government to not overreach and not just take everything they could. They constantly "gave back" won territories when it came to the peace treaty. A full annexation and kicking out the monarchy a la what the Americans did is just not going to happen, and I assume that is what we are talking about.The one planning to do it? aka Britain.
I think the only way to maintain Hawaii as an independent kingdom is for Britain to make it a protectorate. I'm imagining it as a fairly non-interventionist approach, the primary goal being to prevent the US or France from taking it. Even during that short time when Paulet took it over, he left the king and government in place, since his priority (for the most part) was protecting the interests of British subjects.A full annexation and kicking out the monarchy a la what the Americans did is just not going to happen, and I assume that is what we are talking about.
Hawai'i is not on the trade routes between Mexico and China, which is what the Spanish are doing. The Portuguese and Dutch are reaching China from the Indian Ocean, not crossing the Pacific. War of Spanish Succession happened BEFORE Europeans discovered Hawai'i; therefore impossible what you suggested.Dutch / Portuguese / Spain -- if it is before the War of Spanish Succession.
How best to have a place to give your ships water and food on the long Pacific Ocean Crossing?
France -- if it is before 1848.
Britain -- if is it before the US annexation.
Liliʻuokalani was invited to Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee. However, by her attendance at the Golden Jubilee, it was too little too late. Yet, I could see timeline where Hawaii becomes like the British Raj in the Pacific. At least until World War Two - then all bets are off.
Japan -- if it is before the US annexation.
Liliʻuokalani tried to make a military alliance with Japan (and with Britain). It was a miserable attempt on her part. However, by that time, it was too little too late. So Japanese annexing it making it the Manchugo of the Pacific is a possible time-line. It would work at least until World War Two - then all bets are off.
Ugh. Ok, I'll explain to you why people on AltHis.com love the idea of a Russian Hawai'i, and this will let you know why it isn't so far-fetched. Russia built three forts in Kaua'i, the most famous being Fort(ress) Elizabeth. This was in the 1810s and the ruler there, who was rebelling against the newly made King of all the islands, even agreed to be a Russian protectorate. In Europeans eyes prior to the acceptance of the "Principle of Effective Occupation", this was enough to give Russians a future claim to the island (in fact it gave Russia a better claim to Hawai'i than either France or Mexico would later have over Clipperton Island when the King of Italy declared France had the right to possession). So, please, it isn't so far-fetched, it isn't so incredulous, and it doesn't merit mocking. Russia taking Hawai'i doesn't mean Russia taking Hawai'i in the 1890s.Russia?? Russia sold Alaska to the USA in 1867. In the late 19th century Russian presence in the Pacific was almost nil, and Hawaii has zero value to them.
I think the only way to maintain Hawaii as an independent kingdom is for Britain to make it a protectorate. I'm imagining it as a fairly non-interventionist approach, the primary goal being to prevent the US or France from taking it. Even during that short time when Paulet took it over, he left the king and government in place, since his priority (for the most part) was protecting the interests of British subjects.
Tour guides are often people just given scripts, and are generally hired more for their likability and charisma, less for their actual knowledge. Even if they are local to the area, that doesn't mean they have the correct knowledge. Tour guides aren't historians. If you want reliable sources then use peer reviewed articles or books written by people in academia who are likely to have footnotes and citations. Tour guides aren't a source that one would ever use for, say, a dissertation.May I ask why?