What does it take to thwart American ambition on the Pacific?

It´s so easy, just have the British and Russian have Hawaii and/or Alaska, you basically destroyed their ambition right there.

I think it's less to do with that than to change the culture. Even if the purchase doesn't happen (canceling it just sounds like it'd lead to trouble in some regard, as once purchased it would be integrated. Not sure how a takeback would work when the land was mostly indefensible).

The US's energies need to be redirected, and the US and Spain are going to have a border treaty at some point. (the Floridas are still an issue). It needs to become more Caribbean focused, or it needs to either be more isolationist than OTL or have internal troubles that preclude it.
Not really, is not like the US needs a massive civil war to fare worse than OTL.
 
It´s so easy, just have the British and Russian have Hawaii and/or Alaska, you basically destroyed their ambition right there.


Not really, is not like the US needs a massive civil war to fare worse than OTL.

Well, the US had one of those OTL; when 2% of your prewar population dies in a Civil War, I'd count that as major. (In comparison, the UK lost only 1.5% of its prewar population during WW1, which lead to the Lost Generation of note). If the US doesn't have a Civil War of that magnitude, it certainly won't retreat into isolation as much as it did.

Not possessing Alaska does nothing to temper the US's ambitions towards the Pacific, though? Sure, it'd hamper whaling in the north, but that was being done anyway from ports on the Pacific Coast. And American and British whalers both made ports of call in Chukotka as well as Alaska, so the Russians maintaining Alaska would lead to more of the same. And Russian ownership is tenuous at best considering how far-flung the province is and how poorly they could defend the region. They knew that the British could take it in any war that they so desired, which is why the decision to sell it was made. That way, Russia got something out of the territory, and they got to poke the British in the eye by selling it to another power, and not they. So, for Russia to maintain it, Britain must not be so opposed to Russia, which considering the politics of the 19th century...

As for British ownership, a British Alaska would do just as much to thwart US ambitions in the Pacific as British Columbia did.

Russian Hawai'i, while being just as tenuous as Alaska, if not moreso, might require a Russia wank that would begin prior to the formation of the US. It simply isn't necessary for the defense of its territories, being so far-flung. (now, a Russia that has solidified control over a larger portion of Manchuria/Mongolia, with interests in Hokkaido and further? Then it becomes more logical).

British Hawai'i is the biggest obstacle towards American actions in the Pacific... But it is hardly the only singular instance thereof. It would certainly weaken the US's direct gateway to the Pacific, as well as make the supply lines more tenuous between it and further acquired islands, but it hardly stops anything. If we look at Dewey's squadron in 1898, it was anchored in Nagasaki, Japan when the Maine was sunk. From there, they were ordered to travel and base at Hong Kong before conducting operations in the Philippines. (So, even if the British did possess Hawai'i during this hypothetical war, and for some reason ships were being sent from the Pacific coast, I don't see why they'd be turned away at Hawai'i and not at Hong Kong). Either way, Hawai'i wasn't necessary for the success the US had during the Spanish-American war.

So, no, not possessing those two territories does nothing to halt US ambitions in the Pacific. Remember, the Guano Islands Act was passed in 1856, prior to US possession of Hawai'i or Alaska, Not to mention the aborted attempt at a colony/adventurer state in North Borneo in 1866-1867, which occurred before the Alaska purchase as well. These both encompass American interests in the Pacific. We aren't even going into mercantile efforts in the Pacific, the opening of the Empire of Japan to the rest of the world, etc, that took place prior to the acquisition of either Alaska or Hawai'i. Changing the US's ambitions, or maintaining their isolation longer, would accomplish far more in those terms. That, or depriving them of territories with a Pacific coast.

Then again, as we know from Great Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, and Germany, the lack of a Pacific coast is no guarantee that a nation will not be able to act in the Pacific Ocean.
 
Top