Why would America give Hawaii to Japan?
Hey, it's an alternate history. If America had won Vietnam, no one knows what would've happened. Explain to me the radical differences in countries in a story like Greater Colombia or Rebellion of 61. --WhatIf 2:24, 16 Apr 2005 (CDT)
- I think his question was mostly: "what was the reason the US government decided to let go of hawaii, what was in it for them ?" Its usualy a good idea to find some sort of rationale. --Marcpasquin 14:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I'll include something about a war springing up after Vietnam that soured relations with Japan that ends up with Japan fighting with the US for Hawaii and eventually getting it. --WhatIf 13:38, 16 Apr 2005 (CDT)
- Hmmm ... a resurgence of Japanese militarism opens up a whole new can of worms. Japan's constitution forbids war, and that pacifism is supported by the majority of the population. It'd take a pretty strong motivation to get them to resume warfare. Also, *here*, by the time of the Vietnam War Hawaii was already a state, and it's a lot harder to give up a state than a territory.
- A somewhat more likely possibility might be some kind of resurgent Hawaiian nationalism leading Hawaiians to agitate for independance. Perhaps Japan supported their nationalist ambitions in the UN (though that, too, would require a pretty good explanation, some kind of bitterness between Japan and the US -- oh! Here's an idea, perhaps during the Vietnam War, the US had pressured Japan into sending the Self-Defense Forces into Vietnam to fight alongside US forces?). Eventually, the UN forced the US to acknowledge Hawaiian independance. That'd explain why it left the US. Perhaps they became tied closer to Japan, in part due to Japan's earlier support of their independance, and after a while, voted to become part of Japan, due to economic problems stemming from being such a small nation. -- Nik 19:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- That's a really good idea. Can I reword what you suggested? --WhatIf 18:17, 16 Apr 2005 (CDT)
- Thank you. :-) Go right ahead. -- Nik 04:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Paraphrased and done. Does it sound okay? --WhatIf 3:14, 17 Apr 2005 (CDT)
- What if the US gave Japan Guam instead? It's a US territory and much closer to Japan than Hawaii. It's about the same size too. And since its much closer to Japan you wouldn't have to worry about developing a militarized Japan with a huge Pacific fleet to control it's far flung regions.
- You need some explanation here, because if a timeline is implausible then it is the AH equivalent of diarrhea. Why would a victory in Vietnam lead to a nationalist Hawaii? Why would the UN back them up instead of one of the UNSC members? Why would Japan deploy the Self-Defense Force (key word being defense) in a hostile action, and how would that lead to a different war? Flesh out your idea and it will be better. --Messiniano 04:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Different Nations?[]
How many different nations, or redistribution of nation territories, could be in a timeline?
It seems to me very little plausible Hawaii becoming independent and then applying for dependency to Japan in 1975-78 with a POD in the 1960's... it might have better chances to happen with a pre WWII POD... but then, an earlier POD could well butterfly away the Vietnam War (advance of Comunism in China and Indochina, decolonization of French territories, etc. all are related to World War Two).
So, in any alternate history it is always better to start with a POD. An event that was different *there* than *here* (and before that, the history was just the same *there* than *here*).
What is the POD for Vietnam Victory? The POD is not necesaryly in the title... it might well be something like an aborted statehood to Hawaii in 1960. How would this provide a clear US victory in Vietnam? I mean... with still the US being involved in a war between North and South Vietnam? Dunno... who took Hawaii home in the 1960 presidential elections?
Note that Rebellion of '61 has a POD in 1861, and many nations that exist today did not existed back then: Germany, Italy, most of Africa... so it is easy to make a case for having a different outcome in how nations were formed. Ditto for Greater Colombia (POD in 1824).
We might not know what would have happened if the US had prevented the fall of South Vietnam... but we could think on plausible outcomes: things that might have been different... and things that would be near imposible to happen. What in soc.history.what-if is called ASB.
--Carlos Th 02:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The UN couldn't force the US to give up Hawaii. The US is a permenant member of the Security Council and a nay vote (as I would imagine they would vote) from them on any resolution will end it. Plus a nationalist Hawaiian party wouldn't arise from a victory in Vietnam. Ohh yeah I forgot to mention that it is unconstitutional to secced from the Union. Dixie proved that one.--24.59.106.65 20:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)