> it seems immensely improbable that Japan cared about the US takeover of Hawaii per se. They cared about the US fleet that was based there Nobody is saying ot

> it seems immensely improbable that Japan cared about the US takeover of Hawaii per se. They cared about the US fleet that was based there Nobody is saying otherwise. Perhaps you have forgotten again how and why the US fleet got there in the first place: violent American imperialism and expansionism in the late 19th century. It's fairly pointless to imagine situations where that didn't happen, when it did. > So if Hawaii were independent but the US had a fleet base there, no, Japan wasn't going to act peacefully in that imaginary situation - not unless you're postulating an actually peaceful Japan, one that isn't attacking China and the Dutch East Indies. Why not? You're postulating a mythological United States capable of negotiating peacefully with Hawaii (and presumably the Philippines, and Guam, and Cuba, and Puerto Rico?). If such a US ever existed, why would it be impossible for it to also come to a peaceful understanding with Japan? I mean, what are we supposed to be doing here, simply coming up with just the right amount of convenient historical changes to prove your point?