Plausibility check on how I think the end of ww2 would have gone had the Americans never taken Hawai

[stevep]

Sept 13, 2022 14:16:34 GMT miletus12 said:

Sept 12, 2022 20:35:53 GMT stevep said:

  Actually they didn't.  Assuming your referring to the independent action of a naval commander, George Paulet in 1843?  Although this could have ended up with that result if the US had been a bit more rash.  See the video posted in michelvan , post yesterday although that has some factual inaccuracies.  For instance in the 1840's there would be few if any E Asian workers on the islands given that both Japan and Korea were still very much closed societies and China was only just being slightly opened up thanks to the recently concluded 'Opium War'.    As such the position of the US planters on Hawaii were vulnerable to local opposition.  Even as late as the 1890's when their successors organised the coup to overthrow the monarchy this only succeeded because the Hawaiian army feared the coup was supported by the US government because of the presence of their warships.

I'm referring to this and this rascal. The Americans would not have pounced as they did, if he had not given them just cause.

  So there was an earlier coup to restrict Hawaiian power.  Even deeper level of American imperialism than I realised.  They pounced because they wanted more control, simple as that.

  I was referring to the mess in 1843 which could have ended up in a war - which both michelvan, and then you linked to.

[stevep]

Sept 13, 2022 14:20:53 GMT miletus12 said:

Sept 12, 2022 20:53:24 GMT stevep said:

a)  POD could be much later as the US can't contest the islands with either Britain or France - if the latter is determined and not distracted elsewhere, until at least the 1850s.  Also such a change would probably butterfly WWII or change it drastically.

b)  Assuming that the US expands to the Pacific coast it will want to expand its domain across the Pacific if only to secure better access to China and also support for whalers and other such operations,  As such if denied Hawaii they would get somewhere else but where would depend on the circumstances.  They might go for somewhere like the Solomon's as their unclaimed until the 1890's but their a bit distant.  Spanish possessions would mean either a purchase or a war with Spain.  How that's done and when would also seriously affect world history.

c)  Could just as easily be a Franco-Dutch/British/Japanese bloc seeking to deter US expansion.   Again a lot would depend on the circumstances and they could well vary greatly.

d)  That's the same video that michelvan, posted but while it looks at the 1843 incident it doesn't really look through the potential fall-out or how Hawaii is likely to develop if the still relatively weak planter domination was removed.

a. Prior to 1850, the US is in no position to contest the Pacific with anyone. Once California and Washington and Oregon are acquired, nobody is in a position to contest the North Pacific with the United States.  This is a confluence of steam powered ships, a string of USG owned naval bases, naval stores west of the Rockies, the establishment of Union Iron Works. Once the Americans establish a first-class naval facility (Bremerton) in the region, the British are through.

  Agree on the 1st part. For the 2nd part - which would have been after the suggested conflict and could be prevented by that - you also need a significant navy and a government willing to wage imperial campaigns a long, long way from the US.  Which wasn't the case for another ~50 years and even in 1898 the US grab of the Philippines was opportunist and reliant on indirect British support while holding the islands was controversial for a while afterwards, especially with the suppression of the independence movement.

b. Smarter people at the time would have aimed for Truk Lagoon and Rabaul. War with Spain was inevitable. When the USN first established a naval general staff, it was to plot for such a war. Notice I did not write "plan"?

  Only if you assume US imperialist designs continue beyond the continental US, which again was a matter of some opinion inside the US.  If they continue to develop into a major economic and industrial power then they will look at getting into the colonial game but a lot would depend on what was left or could have been seized from weaker powers.

c. True, but with the real animosities that existed between the British in the Malay Settlements and the Dutch in Java, and add OIL, that seems a distant alternative, at least after 1900. The more likely outcome with a less incompetent and more aggressive British local presence is that the threatened parties would aggregate. I could see a French led effort. The British were not all that well liked either in Paris or Amsterdam or surprisingly, Washington, despite the revisionist post WWII histories. The only ones less liked were the Germans and the Russians.

  Britain and the Netherlands were established powers with a strong diplomatic history and few differences.  France was an occasional rival of Britain but at other times friendly.  I think a US that was expanding aggressively and openly declaring that only US imperialism was OK would have been accepted as far more of a threat to everybody's interests in that region.

d. I agree. Prior to 1870, the Sugar Interest was not strong enough to matter. Perhaps not even by 1887 if the Hawaiian Monarchy had not been so incompetent?

  You mean as to try and stand against a corrupt oligarchy who already had economic power and desired political control as well and quickly moved to disenfranchise the majority of the population of the islands that had previously had the vote.

[miletus12]

Sept 13, 2022 20:46:44 GMT stevep said:

you also need a significant navy and a government willing to wage imperial campaigns a long, long way from the US.  Which wasn't the case for another ~50 years and even in 1898 the US grab of the Philippines was opportunist and reliant on indirect British support while holding the islands was controversial for a while afterwards, especially with the suppression of the independence movement.

You should read the Spanish American war threads if you believe this. (^^^)

Better yet, the Filipino-American War thread. The British acquiescence was "useful" but not necessary. As for campaigns far away from the American homeland, there was the Barbary Wars early and the Korean campaign in the 1870s. The Americans usually maintained a global if "small" presence. As I seem to remember, too, the British built and manned pirate ship, CSS Alabama, was hunted down and destroyed in the "English" channel.

As I remarked, the British were not well liked in Washington.

[stevep]

Sept 14, 2022 2:05:44 GMT miletus12 said:

Sept 13, 2022 20:46:44 GMT stevep said:

you also need a significant navy and a government willing to wage imperial campaigns a long, long way from the US.  Which wasn't the case for another ~50 years and even in 1898 the US grab of the Philippines was opportunist and reliant on indirect British support while holding the islands was controversial for a while afterwards, especially with the suppression of the independence movement.

You should read the Spanish American war threads if you believe this. (^^^)

Better yet, the Filipino-American War thread. The British acquiescence was "useful" but not necessary. As for campaigns far away from the American homeland, there was the Barbary Wars early and the Korean campaign in the 1870s. The Americans usually maintained a global if "small" presence. As I seem to remember, too, the British built and manned pirate ship, CSS Alabama, was hunted down and destroyed in the "English" channel.

As I remarked, the British were not well liked in Washington.

  But for the use of Hong Kong would the US have had a fleet in the region?

 In terms of the Barbary pirates that was in a period where ships had pretty much unlimited range - provided they could get food, water etc - and there were friendly ports nearby.  For Korea range was more of an issue but by then the US had a west coast and continental railway and the opponent was technologically backwards. 

  Here we're talking about the most powerful and experienced navy, a sizeable army with experience around the world, plenty of bases from which UK forces could operate against the US and also the most advanced and powerful industrial and financial nation in the world.  The US can cause the UK problems but can't defend what western coast it has in 1843 and is going to suffer badly from the blockade of its coastlines and coastal traffic, which its prior attacks on Canada have been unsuccessful while this time Britain isn't involved in a fight with major continental powers.  The US is going to be left with some serious economic and fiscal problems, even in a short war and the conflict could well change many things about the development of the US compared to OTL.  They are going to lose their economic domination of the Hawaiian islands.

[oscssw]

Guam would be a good base to replace Pearl. Guam's Apra harbor would make a great fleet base and naval shipyard. Don't take my word for it.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW MORE?
Planning Underway for Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard Detachment Guam
by Richard R. Burgess, Senior Editor Seapower December 1, 2021
The U.S. Navy is planning to establish a detachment of the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility in Guam. NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND

ARLINGTON, Va. — Planning is underway for the establishment in Guam of a detachment of the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility (PHNSY & IMF), the yard’s assistant project superintendent for Execution Planning said Nov. 30.

The need for the detachment in Guam is to “close the existing maintenance gaps in executing submarine maintenance in Guam,” said Brandon Wright, the assistant project superintendent.

The naval base in Apra Harbor, Guam, is the home to five Los Angeles-class attack submarines and two submarine tenders which support U.S. Pacific Fleet operations in the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean. The establishment of a PHNSY & IMF detachment underscores the growing importance of Guam in countering the growing Chinese naval power in the region.

Wright said in September 2019 “a comprehensive 221-page study, released by Beth Kuanoni and her team, identified the workforce, training, facilities, and equipment requirements needed to provide the capacity and capabilities for a PHNSY & IMF detachment in Guam.”

The detachment was approved in December 2019, which led to Phase I of the Guam 2025 Plan, Wright said, and the formation of the Guam Implementation Team (GIT).

“Under the leadership of GIT director Alex Desroches, the team is identifying facility needs that include shop workspaces, administrative and management spaces, equipment, information technology, material spaces and storage. In parallel with the temporary facility build-up, military construction projects are in place for permanent detachment facilities with a target end date of 2028,” Wright said.

“The biggest challenge is the grand scope of requirements necessary to stand up a shipyard detachment in a remote location,” Desroches said. “This includes everything from an organizational change request and approval through the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations to identifying and securing the resource requirements in the program objective memorandum and budget, to developing strategies to recruit and fill billets in Guam, and developing local processes for material, work execution and work certification.”

When fully manned, the Guam detachment will include 170 civilian workers and 400 military personnel.

“Civilian employees will provide management, guidance, training, mentoring and development of Sailors, who will be the primary wrench-turning workforce, Wright said.

“The Guam Detachment is unique and we can’t use the current templates being used at Fleet Maintenance in Pearl Harbor, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard Detachment in Point Loma or the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Detachment in Yokosuka,” Desroches said. “The primary workforce will consist of active-duty Sailors who have transferred from the ship tenders to the shipyard detachment, as well as expeditionary maintenance support needs and additional issues associated with Guam’s remote location. We are building a new organization from scratch that is at the tip of the spear, supporting five forward-deployed submarines with the highest optempo in the fleet.”

[miletus12]

Sept 14, 2022 18:11:06 GMT stevep said:

Sept 14, 2022 2:05:44 GMT miletus12 said:

You should read the Spanish American war threads if you believe this. (^^^)

Better yet, the Filipino-American War thread. The British acquiescence was "useful" but not necessary. As for campaigns far away from the American homeland, there was the Barbary Wars early and the Korean campaign in the 1870s. The Americans usually maintained a global if "small" presence. As I seem to remember, too, the British built and manned pirate ship, CSS Alabama, was hunted down and destroyed in the "English" channel.

As I remarked, the British were not well liked in Washington.

  But for the use of Hong Kong would the US have had a fleet in the region?

 In terms of the Barbary pirates that was in a period where ships had pretty much unlimited range - provided they could get food, water etc - and there were friendly ports nearby.  For Korea range was more of an issue but by then the US had a west coast and continental railway and the opponent was technologically backwards. 

  Here we're talking about the most powerful and experienced navy, a sizeable army with experience around the world, plenty of bases from which UK forces could operate against the US and also the most advanced and powerful industrial and financial nation in the world.  The US can cause the UK problems but can't defend what western coast it has in 1843 and is going to suffer badly from the blockade of its coastlines and coastal traffic, which its prior attacks on Canada have been unsuccessful while this time Britain isn't involved in a fight with major continental powers.  The US is going to be left with some serious economic and fiscal problems, even in a short war and the conflict could well change many things about the development of the US compared to OTL.  They are going to lose their economic domination of the Hawaiian islands.

The Americans had a presence agreement with the local warlord at Shanghai. In fact they chased Diederichs out of there, when he came sniffing around in early 1898. 

The Barbary Pirates were such a nuisance that the French and Spanish paid tribute. "Millions for defense, not one cent in tribute" came from the Barbary Wars. The Kingdom of Naples was glad to lend a base (bribes.) to the Americans. 

Tryon, the best the British had in that era before Percy Scott, proves that Dewey, Schley, Cook, Philip, Clarke and their ilk were FAR better ship handlers and battle tacticians.  The Boers will prove too much for that supposed experienced British army which outnumbered them about 4x to 1. The US industrial base surpassed Britain's in 1890. While the 1898 American army was overfilled with many buffoons and ninnies, they did somehow manage three expeditions (Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Philippine Islands) and numerous landings and beat 3x their number in Spaniards without multiple major disasters like Stormberg, Magersfontein and Colenso.

I think the Americans could be a "handful".   

[stevep]

Sept 15, 2022 17:36:10 GMT miletus12 said:

Sept 14, 2022 18:11:06 GMT stevep said:

  But for the use of Hong Kong would the US have had a fleet in the region?

 In terms of the Barbary pirates that was in a period where ships had pretty much unlimited range - provided they could get food, water etc - and there were friendly ports nearby.  For Korea range was more of an issue but by then the US had a west coast and continental railway and the opponent was technologically backwards. 

  Here we're talking about the most powerful and experienced navy, a sizeable army with experience around the world, plenty of bases from which UK forces could operate against the US and also the most advanced and powerful industrial and financial nation in the world.  The US can cause the UK problems but can't defend what western coast it has in 1843 and is going to suffer badly from the blockade of its coastlines and coastal traffic, which its prior attacks on Canada have been unsuccessful while this time Britain isn't involved in a fight with major continental powers.  The US is going to be left with some serious economic and fiscal problems, even in a short war and the conflict could well change many things about the development of the US compared to OTL.  They are going to lose their economic domination of the Hawaiian islands.

The Americans had a presence agreement with the local warlord at Shanghai. In fact they chased Diederichs out of there, when he came sniffing around in early 1898. 

  Which was why they were based in Hong Kong.

The Barbary Pirates were such a nuisance that the French and Spanish paid tribute. "Millions for defense, not one cent in tribute" came from the Barbary Wars. The Kingdom of Naples was glad to lend a base (bribes.) to the Americans.

  Which is irrelevant to the issue.

Tryon, the best the British had in that era before Percy Scott, proves that Dewey, Schley, Cook, Philip, Clarke and their ilk were FAR better ship handlers and battle tacticians. The Boers will prove too much for that supposed experienced British army which outnumbered them about 4x to 1. The US industrial base surpassed Britain's in 1890. While the 1898 American army was overfilled with many buffoons and ninnies, they did somehow manage three expeditions (Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Philippine Islands) and numerous landings and beat 3x their number in Spaniards without multiple major disasters like Stormberg, Magersfontein and Colenso.

    What does your interpretation of events in the late 1890's have to do with the 1843 period.

I think the Americans could be a "handful".

  No doubt but it would take a miracle for them to 'win' anything short of a serious defeat in 1843.  They will lose their position in Hawaii and very likely on the western coast in Oregon as well.  Which along with the war itself will have complex butterflies on the development of the US.